Daily Record back page

[RANGERRAB 3,392]

Grant Russell @STVGrant · 30m 30 minutes ago

 

.@celticfc chief executive Peter Lawwell speaks on the Josh Meekings situation: "Probably everyone preferred this not to happen."

 

 

Grant Russell @STVGrant · 30m 30 minutes ago

 

Lawwell: "The unfortunate consequence is we are now going through this process." Declined to comment further given SFA board position.

 

Heads must roll at the SFA over this.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/1527-case-dismissed

 

SFA shafted by Harper McLeod, whatever next.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Should be the end of the celtc appeasement brigade at the sfa

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Let's leave aside the vexed question of whether or not the Compliance Officer was right to charge the player, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

 

Let's say the ref or other official saw it, awarded the penalty and ordered off the player; judging by reaction on here most folk would have said that was the correct decision(s).

 

Let's also say the next match in the tournament was the first cup tie of next season not the Cup Final. Would ICT have appealed, I very much doubt it.

 

But again, let's say they did appeal.

 

Take a look at the two pictures here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3052672/Inverness-defender-Josh-Meekings-cleared-play-Scottish-Cup-final-independent-panel-tribunal-dismiss-case.html; they appear to show that Meekings raises his arm to handle the ball (unnatural position or not).

 

So how on earth do the Tribunal get from there to case dismissed?

[barca72 440]

Let's leave aside the vexed question of whether or not the Compliance Officer was right to charge the player, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

 

Let's say the ref or other official saw it, awarded the penalty and ordered off the player; judging by reaction on here most folk would have said that was the correct decision(s).

 

Let's also say the next match in the tournament was the first cup tie of next season not the Cup Final. Would ICT have appealed, I very much doubt it.

 

But again, let's say they did appeal.

 

Take a look at the two pictures here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3052672/Inverness-defender-Josh-Meekings-cleared-play-Scottish-Cup-final-independent-panel-tribunal-dismiss-case.html; they appear to show that Meekings raises his arm to handle the ball (unnatural position or not).

 

So how on earth do the Tribunal get from there to case dismissed?

 

Common sense.

[RANGERRAB 3,392]

Common sense.

 

And the fact that FIFA didn't agree with what they were proposing to do.

Doesn't anyone find that a bit concerning?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It seems that the Tribunal may have based their decision on the fact that the referee aided by the offical behind the goal made a conscious decision that the player headed the ball and that whilst that was wrong, it is a different scenario from the referee alone not seeing the incident or making a conscious decision that there was no incident to penalise.

 

It's understandable from that perspective and also from the perspective that it might set a very dangerous precedent.

[barca72 440]

It seems that the Tribunal may have based their decision on the fact that the referee aided by the offical behind the goal made a conscious decision that the player headed the ball and that whilst that was wrong, it is a different scenario from the referee alone not seeing the incident or making a conscious decision that there was no incident to penalise.

 

It's understandable from that perspective and also from the perspective that it might set a very dangerous precedent.

 

Now yer talking.

[Bluedell 5,413]

Let's leave aside the vexed question of whether or not the Compliance Officer was right to charge the player, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

 

Err, no he wasn't. Never before in world history has anyone been pulled up in this manner for handball, so why would he be damned if he didn't? It was unexpected and obviously the wrong decision.

 

Let's say the ref or other official saw it, awarded the penalty and ordered off the player; judging by reaction on here most folk would have said that was the correct decision(s).

 

Let's also say the next match in the tournament was the first cup tie of next season not the Cup Final. Would ICT have appealed, I very much doubt it.

 

But again, let's say they did appeal.

 

Take a look at the two pictures here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3052672/Inverness-defender-Josh-Meekings-cleared-play-Scottish-Cup-final-independent-panel-tribunal-dismiss-case.html; they appear to show that Meekings raises his arm to handle the ball (unnatural position or not).

 

So how on earth do the Tribunal get from there to case dismissed?

 

Because it wasn't violent conduct as per the Fifa referee chairman

[ian1964 10,582]

Josh Meekings: Vincent Lunny shocked by panel decision

 

The Scottish FA's former compliance officer admits that he is "quite shocked" that Josh Meekings is free to play in the Scottish Cup final.

 

A judicial panel dismissed the defender's retrospective one-game suspension for a semi-final hand ball missed by the match officials.

 

"For me, it was a stone-waller," Vincent Lunny told BBC Scotland.

 

"Possibly just sympathy from the panel. At the end of the day, it's a jury and anything can happen with a jury."

 

Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce and former Celtic manager Neil Lennon had both suggested that taking retrospective action over a hand ball for the first time would set a dangerous precedent.

 

But Lunny believes his successor, Tony McGlennan, was right to bring the case against Meekings for handling a goalbound Leigh Griffiths header in the 3-2 win over Celtic.

 

"I don't think it is a dangerous precedent because the rule itself is quite clear - it's any sending off offence missed by match officials," he said.

 

"If you pick and choose which offences you're going to raise and which you're not arbitrarily, that would be a dangerous precedent.

 

"If the clubs or individuals feel that the rule has to be narrowed down to violent conduct or serious foul play, for example, that would require a rule change.

 

"As it stands just now, the rule covers this scenario, so I think Tony McGlennan had nowhere to go and had to take the case to the panel."

 

Lunny explained that, following discussions with the refereeing department, the compliance officer would have contacted the six match officials individually and asked them to confirm, usually by email, that they missed the incident before issuing his offer of a one-game suspension.

 

The former compliance officer thought there were two possible explanations for the panel's subsequent decision - sympathy or confusion over the offence.

 

"The three people deciding it will be football people and it may have been with a good plea put up by Josh Meekings' legal team, that there's been a degree of sympathy for the player," he said.

 

"There might have been some argument over whether this was an offence missed by match officials or not.

 

"But the key word is 'offence' not 'incident'. We had Ryan Stevenson dealt with a couple of years ago for serious foul play where the referee and assistant had seen the tackle.

 

"They had seen the incident but missed the fact it was serious foul play. And it is really the offence that's important, not the incident."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417