barca72

Oh God, no. All they will do with that is cause another debacle, except in slo-mo !!

Well let's just say it's more right than the wrong decision from the ref and you. However, the real point remains cloudy. Which is the SFA's attempt to keep their compliance procedure and the rules of the game clear for the paying public to accept unreservedly. Take the comparison between the Collum incident with Candeias and these last two incidents. In the Candeias incident they were trying to back their ref's decision as being correct, whereas in these last two they are saying that their refs were in effect derelict in the execution of their duties and therefore the CO had to impose bans. How can anybody agree on anything and consider the treatment handed out by the compliance procedure as being fair when there is this kind of confusion. These are only incidents with Rangers, include the other teams and the whole thing becomes a debacle.

And so did you.

Recent News FEB 13 Club 1872 seeks answers from SFA over disciplinary process > FEB 08 Media Guidance for Supporters > OCT 15 Club 1872 Response to Ibrox Fanzone FOI Release > News Archive > Club 1872 seeks answers from SFA over disciplinary process 13 February, 2019 Club 1872 has today written to the SFA seeking explanation for the incomprehensible decision making of their compliance officer, Clare Whyte and the judicial panels convened by them to oversee disciplinary matters in Scottish football. Supporters of all clubs have been left confused and concerned by the process of citing players for events that it is claimed have been missed by referees, despite clear video evidence to the contrary. There are also major anomalies within the appeals process for red card offences and a complete lack of transparency and consistency in decisions reached. The following questions have been directed to the SFA and we hope that they will properly address this situation before the continued actions of their compliance officer and judicial panels make a mockery of this season’s competitions. How are judicial panels selected prior to appeals being heard? We understand there is a pool of around forty people to choose from but who decides which three of these forty sit on any given panel? Why is this process not transparent and why is there no explanation from the SFA on the role of the compliance officer in these selections? If the selection is not random and transparent, at least to the clubs involved in any given hearing, then why is that the case? With recent decisions, the compliance officer appears to be ignoring the FIFA directive which states that citing cannot be used to correct bad refereeing. We now see instances where referees have awarded yellow cards but then appear to be encouraged to claim they have not seen incidents to allow retrospective action. When do referees submit their reports to the SFA following matches and precisely what steps are being taken to ensure that referees are not subject to any outside influence prior to submitting these reports? The process of citing players after games, and the appeals process for action taken by referees on the park appears to be heavily influenced by certain media platforms and the prominence they give, or do not give, to certain incidents. Incidents have included blatant acts of diving and violent conduct which, when not highlighted by the media, have also been ignored by the compliance officer. Is trial by media an accepted part of the SFA disciplinary process and if so, what safeguards are in place to stop clubs, on whom undue focus is placed, from being unfairly penalised? Issued by Supporters Voice Limited, a Club 1872 company

That was not an overhead kick, so no need to take them out of the game. If the ball had hit his boot, studs or otherwise, he would have had no control of it, it could have gone anywhere. Before he goes for the ball he had looked twice at Jack and knew exactly where he was, it was probably a deliberate act of intimidation to prevent Jack from trying to head the ball. McGregor and Power are two entirely different incidents so whataboutary won't work. The ref got it wrong and so has the CO.

Are you kidding? Studs up and at head height - RED every time. How can we take the hammer throwers out of the game if this conduct is allowed?

Rangers should ask the SFA that with all the video clips and still photos available showing this incident what constitutes 'insufficient evidence'. They should be asked to clarify, publicly, just what exactly would suit their requirements for 'sufficient evidence' to warrant their acceptance of an action of violent conduct. How can they possibly expect other clubs and fans to maintain respect for their 'compliance programme' in the face of such undeniably selective choices and decisions?

How many polls have the BBC initiated on any athlete in any sport before this? Is it the assignment of the BBC to report, in an unbiased fashion, or to make the news? Should IPSO be informed of the actions of the BBC?

What needs to be made abundantly clear to the public is how and why the CO decides which incidents to review. She should publish a list of all incidents reviewed and her reasons for reviewing an incident. Surely this would then eliminate 'trial by mhedia'.

In view of his reported drinking problems maybe he needs to be 'hung out to dry out' to allow the footballer in him to show properly.

Nah, we need publicity to promote the brand. This will all change when we win 55. The way these guys are carrying on you can feel the desperation that the solid challenge is creating.

They are only preaching to their core audience. Who, (a) listens to them outwith their core audience, (b) cares outwith their core audience? Win 55 and they become completely irrelevant.

Manufactured incident. He'll return as the chairman of SFA's VAR committee !!

I never seen the game today but it seems like, reading the thread, that the team has gone from heroes to zeroes in ninety minutes. The sun will rise tomorrow.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code. This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories. Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981). In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation. Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983. Joseph Card. RATZINGER Prefect + Fr. Jerome Hamer, O.P. Titular Archbishop of Lorium Secretary

Effectively we have Defoe and Davis replacing Sadiq and Ojaria. That should work.

We don't have time to wait for expensive young guys to develop, that's what the academy is for. We need proven ability to get us over the line NOW.

Now they can believe. C'mon 55.

Or a Savulle calculator?

Oh, I don't doubt that the editorial staff were the root of the problem, but even if all of the editors have changed since then their, PQ's, culture has not.

I hope Dave King does not comply with any overtures from PQ that does not entail a complete clean-out of reporters. I remember at the time when the reporter had his press privileges withdrawn that Chick Young declared that if Rangers did not want one of them, then none of them would attend. Rangers' games. This showed a systemic bias then and it still remains today, which will not be cleared by anything less than a complete clearout. Let London find out the real problem before we go through with a sham make up and be friends again until the next time. Really, who needs whom the most?

After that tweet this guy has shown a very poor moral compass. He needs to stop trying to point-score by moralizing to Rangers' fans. No credibility left.

One goal in 270 mins. and that was from a free kick. During that run our tactics have been crossing from the wings to hit the central marksman. What happened to defence-splitting passes and one-twos through the middle?