bluebear54 0 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 So far, we all seem to be in agreement. Naisy was out of order, and deserved to be punished. The Compliance Officer bit is total crap. In this day and age, there should be total transparency. Are we trying to say that an unknown person, with unknown credentials should be judge and jury and his/her verdict be accepted by us all - who incidentally keep the SFA/SPL in business by paying our hard earned dosh to attend football matches. Who's to say they didn't ask Kim Jong-il or Muammar Gaddafi to make a determination? Are we allowed to know who this unknown person is? Piece of piss, if you ask me, and not far removed from the old SFA way of doing things. Actually, I don't see any difference, apart from deference, if you get my drift. What sticks in my craw is the fact that Hooper got off scott free for a similar, and arguably more severe offence. That tells me that, apart from a lack of transparency, there is an urgency within the SFA to deal with issues that are raised within the media, and disregard anything that is not "on the radar." This isn't uncommon in public bodies - in fact it's modus operandi. That then leads us into the realms of how much (or how little - just a joke) the media play a role in all of this. I distinctly remember the lack of media attention regarding the Hooper incident. I'm reminded of the laughable issue of Corinthian spirit. What I see today is a single-minded attempt - purely for economic purposes - to win by fair means or foul. As far as I'm concerned, I would be quite happy to drop all this Old Firm pretence. Let's go to England at the lowest tier, and let them stew in their own mire. They might even reinvent themselves as quintessentially Scottish. The way they are behaving, they don't want competition unless they win. To sum up, once again, Naisy deserved his punishment. I don't deny that. What is lacking, however, is an even playing field. And we are never going to get that. I don't look forward to the latter stages of this league campaign. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 bluebear, agree with most but disagree about the Hooper incident. May have caused more damage to the opponent but looked more innocuous and more innocent than the Naismith incident to me. Opinions eh..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 A thread on FF a Rangers fan tweeted Darryl Broadfoot of the SFA questioning the unnamed CO and where is the transparency, was promptly told to protect him from people like you. Kind of says it all really. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,146 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Regarding Hooper ... simple question: was this already being set up by then? Generally, "we" should not be told who the Temp' CO is, but someone at each club should know, be that chairman, CEO, manager or whatnot. Keeping this figure in the shadow will ensure accusations all over the place. There's enough shadowy stuff going on already, no need to incense the supporters any more. Still, I doubt that there is something written in the statutes of the SFA or SPL that they have to be open and democratic with the public about every aspect of their dealings ... Obviously, only time will tell whether this new procedure is a good thing. As has been said already: with the publicity and greater amount of live coverage of the Old Firm "we" are bound to suffer more than the likes of Dunfermline and Kilmarnock. Unless ... the match officials and "objective" onlookers at each game report incidents like Naismith's after the game. I won't hold my breath just yet though ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,870 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Is this video evidence only being used to punish players?,serious question. The perfectly good goal that Lafferty scored against the BHEASTS for instance? and the likes of when Jelavic clearly got fouled in the box against the BHEASTS in the cup final yet was booked for diving?. When is it to be used and when is it not to be used?. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,890 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Regarding Hooper ... simple question: was this already being set up by then? Generally, "we" should not be told who the Temp' CO is, but someone at each club should know, be that chairman, CEO, manager or whatnot. Keeping this figure in the shadow will ensure accusations all over the place. There's enough shadowy stuff going on already, no need to incense the supporters any more. Still, I doubt that there is something written in the statutes of the SFA or SPL that they have to be open and democratic with the public about every aspect of their dealings ... Obviously, only time will tell whether this new procedure is a good thing. As has been said already: with the publicity and greater amount of live coverage of the Old Firm "we" are bound to suffer more than the likes of Dunfermline and Kilmarnock. Unless ... the match officials and "objective" onlookers at each game report incidents like Naismith's after the game. I won't hold my breath just yet though ... I contacted Regan and the SFA twitter account asking about the Hooper incident at the time. They didn't reply. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,146 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I contacted Regan and the SFA twitter account asking about the Hooper incident at the time. They didn't reply. Well ... I assume it needs to be "reported" by someone. Apparently, not everyone "reporting" it gets the same level of attention. If you have not been a touch paranoid by now, here's the recipe ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,890 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Well ... I assume it needs to be "reported" by someone. Apparently, not everyone "reporting" it gets the same level of attention. If you have not been a touch paranoid by now, here's the recipe ... IIRC, Broadfoot said yesterday anyone can 'report' such incidents. What isn't clear is who decides what gets referred to their Compliance Officer - allegedly an Edinburgh lawyer called Will Cole. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,870 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 RANGERS will not go to war with the SFA over the two-match ban handed to Stevie Naismith. Gaffer Ally McCoist has accepted the punishment dished out to hitman Naisy for elbowing Austin McCann in the 4-0 win at Dunfermline. But Ibrox chiefs have demanded the SFA apply the new hard-line disciplinary laws to every club. The flashpoint at East End Park was missed by ref Iain Brines, but the SFA's new compliance officer Will Cole acted after studying video footage. Naismith apologised to McCann and last night a Rangers spokesman said: "After reviewing video footage, we have decided to accept the fixed suspension. The player will miss the next two SPL matches against Kilmarnock and Hibs. Steven has had an apology accepted by Austin McCann and admits there was no deliberate intent to make contact with the player. "As manager Ally McCoist has stated, we support the new SFA fast-track process for dealing with disciplinary matters and trust it will be applied fairly across all clubs." It is the first high-profile incident to be handled under the new guidelines by legal eagle Cole, who is acting on a temporary basis until the SFA find a permanent compliance officer. The Hampden beaks have tried to keep Cole as low-profile as possible, but SunSport can reveal he is the man entrusted with the key role. Naismith's ban is the same punishment he would have received had ref Brines sent him off for violent conduct. Speaking before the verdict McCoist said: "It would be a spanner in the works, but not a major problem. I have a full complement of players apart from Kyle Bartley. It's the best position I've been in." Skipper Davie Weir, Lee Wallace, Matt McKay and Jamie Ness are all available for tonight's clash with Kilmarnock at Ibrox. Victory tonight then against Hibs on Saturday would put Rangers TEN points clear of Celtic before the Hoops face Hearts on Sunday. McCoist added: "I can't speak for Celtic, but from our point of view it would be a real boost psychologically." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3837898/McCoist-wont-fight-2-game-ban.html#ixzz1Z950u4zX 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 IIRC, Broadfoot said yesterday anyone can 'report' such incidents. If that's the case the video panel will be doing bucket loads of OT. Fans will be watching games eagle-eyed in the hope to land one of the rival teams players in the shit. I hope Kirk has got it wrong because the process will become the laughing stock of europe if true. 0 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.