It may not have the passion of the Fergus McCann v Jim Farry case but it looks like Celtic are on the case of the SFA with regard to their Review Panel.Rejecting Glenn Loovens appeal against a one match suspension handed out by the SFA seems to have opened a can of worms that requires answering.
Celtic's question to the SFA seems quite clear cut: 'to ascertain the criteria for referring incidents to the SFA Review Panel'.
A look through the section on the SFA website seems to suggest that clubs can appeal against sendings-off to the Review Panel.
OVERTURNING
Video evidence is taken into account and a retrospective judgement made; some decisions are confirmed and some decisions are overturned allowing players to avoid suspensions with red card's rescinded or downgraded to yellow card offenses.
Fair enough, no argument there. You can't turn the clock back but at least players aren't being punished twice over for mistakes made by referees.
The more contentious issues are those that found Glenn Loovens and Scott McDonald called before the SFA for incidents in the matches against Rangers on May 9 and Dundee United on May 12.
Who made those decisions?
Why were those decisions made?
MISTAKES
There are lots of other questions that arise but in every single football match there are questionable decisions made, referees make mistakes just like players and managers.
Even in the two matches in question there were other decisions made that could be challenged.
The SFA are clearly taking their time in coming up with an answer that should be straightforward, surely the criteria for the Review Panel must be included in the SFA rulebook.
RE-RUNS
If a straightforward answer can't be found we are entering murky water. Do referees watch re-runs of their matches to see if they missed an incident that should have been punished?
Are televised games given extra scrutiny with the extra cameras?
Celtic have been waiting over a month for answers, interestingly the club clearly feels that other recent incidents are escaping the Review Panel.
Celtic's statement said: "We still do not understand the procedure by which Glenn Loovens and Scott McDonald were referred for review and other similar incidents in recent months have not been. The process seems to be disparate and arbitrary.
“Our objective is to ensure that these processes are applied fairly, consistently and in a transparent manner, for the benefit of all clubs and players.
“We will continue to pursue this objective and look forward to hearing from the SFA shortly."
MYSTERY
The SFA have plenty of problems to deal with not of their making, the mystery surrounding the Loovens and McDonald incidents have been created by themselves, only the SFA can answer the questions raised by Celtic.
Tomorrow's Celtic-Motherwell game will be refereed by Chris Boyle, a new name to me who has only refereed two SPL games this season and has never before handled a Celtic match.
After today's Celtic statement and the incidents at the Rangers-Celtic match a fortnight ago Boyle will find himself under intense scrutiny with every decision.
A good referee is one that gets through a match without being noticed, happy to stay in the background and let the players take centre-stage.
Recent events suggest that Boyle will have to have the performance of his life to get through tomorrow's match without being involved in further controversy.
The SFA have replied to Celtic's request by saying that they will reply in due course, whenever that is.
3 comments:
I am a Celtic fan and have been since I was old enough to chant! But I am not so blind as some who seem to think this is a miscarraige of justice. We all know the SFA and the SPL have the two agendas. One for us and one for the rest. This was blatantly obvious to people all over the world who watched the last Old Firm game. Fpr refs to make excuses was actually worse than the original offences. However, what Glenn Loovens did to a player of lower than average ability and was subsequently punished for, many months later, was out of order. Loovens was wrong. Just as Celtic are wrong to defend him. I don't care what other players do and get away with. I care about the conduct of Celtic players even in the face of adversity like now and like the last Old Firm game. Let the other bad stuff take care of itself. We are Celtic. We don't stoop this far. Novo,s handball, Lafferty's disgracefull stamp at ZZ, Weir's legbreaker on McDonald are all the huns problems. None of them make Loovens right. Nor Celtic for that matter. Get on with it guys. Suck it up. This is nothing new. We walk on! We hold our heads high and we play to win. We play fairly though. why? Because we are Celtic.
All very well weetim67 if you want to suck it up as you say, but I prefer we start standing up to injustice and show the world we ain't going to take this prejudice any longer.
It can't be paranoia
There are two clear thoughts through this which can sit side by side.
Yes Celtic players should play the game by the rules, the incident with Edu isn't clear cut to me, Loovens was in mid-air, it was borderline and marginal, best avoided but unexceptional.
However, if Celtic players are subject to this level of scrutiny the club are perfectly right to ask the criteria for these reviews.
Do referees review every game, is it incidents that the SFA themselves feel are worth looking at again or is there some other random process involved.
The 'Loovens incident' is fairly common in the game, lots of players make contact with the ball and follow through, if they collide with an opponent the feeling is that if they collect the ball first then it's fair game if there is contact in the follow through.
The SFA's answer will make interesting reading
Post a Comment