Popular Post SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 Chris Jack: Is it time to reassess the role of the Compliance Officer in Scottish football? By Christopher Jack IT is eight years since the Scottish FA introduced the role of Compliance Officer as part of changes to its disciplinary procedures. Now, it may be time to get back to the drawing board. When Clare Whyte, the latest incumbent to hold the post following the tenures of Vincent Lunny and Tony McGlennan, is talked about as prominently as she has been at times this season then there is a problem with the system. The CO position is a thankless task and no matter what decisions are reached on any case that is put forward, there will always be a party involved that are left angry and upset. Accusations of bias and conspiracies can never be proven and remain the barb of choice of supporters online but real concerns and questions over the protocols can’t be overlooked. It is not just fans that are quickly losing faith with the SFA and those that implement its rulebook and there seems to be a growing feeling within the game that the current way of doing things isn’t fit for purpose. It was Lunny that played down the talk of ‘trial by Sportscene’ four years ago now but events this season have done nothing to dispel fears over how incidents are raised and dealt with. Matches that are live on television – like Rangers’ win over Aberdeen at Pittodrie was – automatically generate more public debate and there is greater scope for moments in those games to create headlines, and subsequently be raised as disciplinary matters. Controversies in others – like celtic’s victory at home to Hibernian – don’t get the same attention, though, and challenges such as the one Scott Brown made on Mark Milligan go unnoticed because it remained on the cutting room floor. It is unfathomable how the Compliance Officer can take no further action against Jozo Simunovic for his appalling elbow on Oli Shaw but Darnell Johnson, whose tackle on Emilio Izaguirre was dealt with at the time as he received a yellow card, now faces a hearing in an attempt to avoid a two-game suspension. Gers keeper Allan McGregor has the same battle to fight this week but there was no citing of Lewis Ferguson for his retaliation towards the 36-year-old later in the match. For the record, it is understandable why Bobby Madden sent Alfredo Morelos off and why the appeal was rejected. Likewise, it was no surprise that McGregor was cited. It is the process and the lack of clarity and consistency around it that is the issue, however. Just when players, punters and pundits think they have it sussed, a situation comes about that seemingly defies logic and goes against the precedents. Now, another incident has been thrown into the mix from the weekend. At Rugby Park, Alan Power was booked for a high foot that caught Ryan Jack in the face. It was a nasty incident and one that could have been far more serious. Steven Gerrard refused to be drawn too much on it post-match, but Rangers will keep an interested eye on the actions of the Compliance Officer in the coming days. Once that drama has subsided, another will almost certainly follow sooner rather than later and the cycle will start all over again. It is already becoming tedious. Scottish football can’t get itself into the situation where matches are being re-refereed the morning after the night before. That isn’t good for the game. If a referee sees an incident, he deals with it and that is the end of it. If he misses it, these things happen and that’s life. No two moments are the same but it is the lack of consistency that will lead to the whataboutery. Once faith in the system is eroded, the SFA have a real problem. There should still be a route for players to go down if they feel they have been harshly dealt with and an appeal avenue has to stay in place for red card decisions. But the status quo of some issues being highlighted more than others and some being dealt with differently is causing more problems than it is solving. There seems little consistency in the way that cases are brought and handled. A panel at Hampden shouldn’t have more power than the man in the middle. The referee’s word used to be final, so let’s make that the case once again. dougie76, cascadeshrimp, CharlieT and 12 others 15 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TEFTONG 59,868 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 I'm guessing using this wee Fact would have given the article a "whataboutery" feel to it..?? CharlieT, dougie76, eejay the dj and 4 others 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prince George 600 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 Good article and highlights the anomalies. A system brought in to appease the scum. There is no consistency and needs to be scrapped. gmcf, Geo17, Bears r us and 4 others 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, TEFTONG said: I'm guessing using this wee Fact would have given the article a "whataboutery" feel to it..?? “Accusations of bias can never be proven” oh really Chris..... Bears, bornabear, TEFTONG and 4 others 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 Think he's puting to print what many of us have been saying. The system is riddled with holes and is not fit for purpose. Not unless you're the obvious beneficiary as highlighted in post 2. Bearsden bear, gmcf, TEFTONG and 7 others 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyscott1963 18,016 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Conflict of interest from day one,made sure we were going to become a target for the 3 season ticket holders from the paedo dome,who have held this position. Until some cunt questions this situation,we're on to plums. eejay the dj and Blue Rino 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negri's lovechild 13,593 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 That's an excellent article and does make sense. The compliance officer role is not fit for purpose, so scrap it. It does though, put the Power squarely with the referees again, so the question is can we trust them to make the correct and unbiased decisions? I'm not so sure. what does need to stop is this culture of trial by tv and the pundits having too much power. True Hair Bear 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: Think he's puting to print what many of us have been saying. The system is riddled with holes and is not fit for purpose. Not unless you're the obvious beneficiary as highlighted in post 2. I would agree the system is riddled with holes if all teams were getting it tight, but all teams aren’t getting it tight. So the system is working exactly how the team that forced it into existence in the first place wanted it to work, the system isn’t flawed it’s the application of said system to favour one team that is the hole. 1690tamRFC, Bad Robot, dougie76 and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said: I would agree the system is riddled with holes if all teams were getting it tight, but all teams aren’t getting it tight. So the system is working exactly how the team that forced it into existence in the first place wanted it to work, the system isn’t flawed it’s the application of said system to favour one team that is the hole. It's the system as much as the application, particularly due to the lack of transparency. For parity all games need watched for the entire game, having been recorded and edited by neutral broadcasters/ editorial teams. The only way for this to happen is for in house team to do so, be audited by neutral overseers, and transparent in the logic behind incidents progressed to charge and those not. This gives all teams equality. This does not happen, nor is it meant to or ever going to, so the current system is flawed. Those teams on live t.v. are more at risk. Then there's the obvious application issues, where us and the scum are the two teams most at risk but only one receives multiple charges and the other scot free. That's due to trial by tv and biased broadcasters. That's the application failing. Deliberately I'd argue. So unless the system and application can be made fair across the board, none of it is fit for purpose. OhW, bluedart1952, Bears and 4 others 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ricksen_da_best 2,034 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 Strange one from midweek was the boy from Hibs that went through Izzaguire. He was booked at the time for the challenge. But was then cited by the compliance officer for a red card. was under the impression, that if you where carded at the time for an offence the compliance officer couldn’t do anything about it. Pretty sure this is how Brown managed to get away with it. also these fast tracked hearings never seem to exist when it’s a celtic player involved 😂 True Hair Bear, Blue Rino, JCDBigBear and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 Scrap the CO and have a panel of ex Refs look at any decisions that the clubs raise not the media and a club can only raise 2 issues per game to report to the panel. dougie76, Bakbear, Bears and 3 others 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: It's the system as much as the application, particularly due to the lack of transparency. For parity all games need watched for the entire game, having been recorded and edited by neutral broadcasters/ editorial teams. The only way for this to happen is for in house team to do so, be audited by neutral overseers, and transparent in the logic behind incidents progressed to charge and those not. This gives all teams equality. This does not happen, nor is it meant to or ever going to, so the current system is flawed. Those teams on live t.v. are more at risk. Then there's the obvious application issues, where us and the scum are the two teams most at risk but only one receives multiple charges and the other scot free. That's due to trial by tv and biased broadcasters. That's the application failing. Deliberately I'd argue. So unless the system and application can be made fair across the board, none of it is fit for purpose. The sheer logistics of that is unworkable, we can’t have a panel watching every game played. The broadcaster has the whole game recorded it isn’t then hard for any panel to ask for footage of a certain moment in the game. As I’ve said before the media should be taken right out of the equation and it left to each club to raise any issues, the broadcaster is simply there to supply footage. You cant have a perfect system where all games aren’t recorded in full, but every top flight game can be covered. You do the best for the best teams in the country. Sweetheart and scottyscott1963 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhW 4,669 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Does the Compliane Officer actually watch every game in full, or just wait for the media to highlight things? JCDBigBear 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 19 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said: The sheer logistics of that is unworkable, we can’t have a panel watching every game played. The broadcaster has the whole game recorded it isn’t then hard for any panel to ask for footage of a certain moment in the game. As I’ve said before the media should be taken right out of the equation and it left to each club to raise any issues, the broadcaster is simply there to supply footage. You cant have a perfect system where all games aren’t recorded in full, but every top flight game can be covered. You do the best for the best teams in the country. No we can't. But that's why the system is flawed because there's no chance all teams are treated equally from the outset, even before possible bias comes into it. In the spl, if all games aren't scrutinised equally, even if not televised, then there's no chance of fairness in the system, ie it's flawed and unfit for purpose. That has to also apply to lower leagues if any if their games become televised too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: No we can't. But that's why the system is flawed because there's no chance all teams are treated equally from the outset, even before possible bias comes into it. In the spl, if all games aren't scrutinised equally, even if not televised, then there's no chance of fairness in the system, ie it's flawed and unfit for purpose. That has to also apply to lower leagues if any if their games become televised too. Every other sport in the world accepts that all games/matches can’t be covered equally so they do the best they can with what they have. The top league can be covered so it should be. But even then until we take the scum factor out of the equation it’s still flawed. Bad Robot and scottyscott1963 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Nothing new in that really. It would be far better if Jack wrote an article about how these incidents are brought to the Compliance Officers attention. Nobody seems to know this . scottyscott1963 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 34 minutes ago, OhW said: Does the Compliane Officer actually watch every game in full, or just wait for the media to highlight things? There's little clarity on it. It's widely reported they receive evidential material from reputable (😁)outlets including main broadcasters. Clubs can also complain about incidents formally. It has been said that anyone including individuals can make complaints to highlight issues too, but I can personally vouch for this failing to be the case the time I did so. Doubt they watch all games, even the televised ones. They seem to wait to be fed issues on a plate. OhW, JCDBigBear and Bears 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BridgeIsBlue 66,498 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: Accusations of bias and conspiracies can never be proven 3 Compliance officers of a selik persuasion. Amount of times a selik player has been cited = 0 Rangers = 9 The evidence is there. eejay the dj, Bad Robot, Bears r us and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,260 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said: 3 Compliance officers of a selik persuasion. Amount of times a selik player has been cited = 0 Rangers = 9 The evidence is there. Maybe it's coincidental 😂😂😂😂 scottyscott1963, eejay the dj and BridgeIsBlue 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bearsden bear 2,376 Posted February 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2019 From what I understand the reason it was introduced was to capture any off the ball incidents that the ref would usually not see if keeping up with play. Seems somewhere along it has lost its purpose and is starting to resemble something more sinister. Bluekev, JCDBigBear, Malkster and 3 others 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsden bear 2,376 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Courtyard Bear said: Scrap the CO and have a panel of ex Refs look at any decisions that the clubs raise not the media and a club can only raise 2 issues per game to report to the panel. We need something like this with clear rules and restrictions. The current airy/fairy random pish seems only to favour one club. Courtyard Bear 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejay the dj 31,964 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, TEFTONG said: I'm guessing using this wee Fact would have given the article a "whataboutery" feel to it..?? That is a fucking disgrace but with the list of the biased bheast loving bastards in control of it . That may explain it . And look . It's all the teams that could hurt the scum sitting at the top Watch out for a bheast player being sighted soon , where the player is not important and he misses a meaningless game or a game where he probably wouldn't be playing in. Just to make it look like no bias going here . Aye fucking right You have to hand it to the scum . Even with this . The scum will still say the SFA and the lot of them are masons . They will unified on that one Bears r us, BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT and scottyscott1963 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,524 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, BridgeIsBlue said: 3 Compliance officers of a selik persuasion. Amount of times a selik player has been cited = 0 Rangers = 9 The evidence is there. Don't think that stat relates to citations alone mate. It relates to citations and appeals combined. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejay the dj 31,964 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, ricksen_da_best said: also these fast tracked hearings never seem to exist when it’s a celtic player involved 😂 Only to get Brown off versus Ross County . He was then available to play against us Bears, scottyscott1963 and 1690tamRFC 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 33 minutes ago, Bearsden bear said: We need something like this with clear rules and restrictions. The current airy/fairy random pish seems only to favour one club. No seems about it mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.