Sfa try to keep celtic verdict secret -leggoland

[ian1964 10,410]

IT is a measure of the way the Scottish Football Association operates, and the manner in which it is scrutinised by the nation's media, that the wider public is no longer made aware of decisions taken and verdicts reached by the game's governing body.

 

Take for instance the case of the last Old Firm game played at Ibrox, which took place as long ago as last February.

 

It is a turbo charged encounter with referee Dougie McDonald sending off Celtic captain Scott Brown and Maurice Edu bundling in a last minute winner for Rangers.

 

The fact that there were fireworks came as no surprise as, in the build up to the vital clash, Celtic, via their official website, appreared to seek to crank up the pressure on referee McDonald with an anonymous rant.

 

The press gave it massive coverage and SFA President George Peate was quick to respond by branding such an anonymous attack as "cowardly."

 

What followed in the game's aftermath led to then Celtic manager Tony Mowbray being referred to the SFA General Purposes Committee for remarks, critical of the referee.

 

Not long afterwards, while on international duty with the Republic of Ireland, Aiden McGeady was interviewed by a Scottish journalist and added his critical comments, and the General Purposes Committee was again called in.

 

However, the most widely publicised event came when the official Celtic website again leapt in, and just over an hour after the end of the match it launched a full blooded attack on Dougie McDonald's integrity.

 

The crux of this was that "no fair minded person" would agree with McDonald's decision to send off Brown, with the clear implication being that as McDonald had taken the red card decision, he was not fair minded.

 

Daily newspaper journalists working in the Ibrox media media room, filing match reports, plus stories with the views given to them by the managers and players in post match interviews, quickly became aware of the content on the official Celtic website.

 

Having picked up on it they then incorporated it into those reaction reports and the "no fair minded person" allegation formed the main thrust of the stories which led the back pages, from the red tops, through the middle market papers, to the broadsheets.

 

The general line taken by the media was that Celtic could find themselves in deep trouble with the SFA over the website attack, an natural assumption to make, especiall given president Peat's obvious disgust and anger at what had appeared there prior to the game.

 

But afterwards? How did the media follow up on things? Well, it would seem they all just forgot about it.

 

Something which had been splashed all over the back pages for a couple of days and which jammed the lines to the radio phone in programmes, just slipped off the media's radar.

 

Of course the increasingly secret service which is the SFA hardly helped.

 

In the past any decisions by the General Purposes Committee - which deals with offences such as what managers and players say in media interviews - were made public.

 

Now, according to my information, under chairman Rod Petrie, who is also chairman of Hibernian, that has changed. No news of decisions taken by the General Purposes Committee are made public.

 

News however, has a way of leaking out, and I can now bring you the decisions taken by Petrie's Committtee regarding what appeared on the official Celtic website, and what was said by Mowbray and McGeady.

 

McGeady, said Petrie's committee, had no case to answer. As far as Mowbray was concerned, by the time the committee sat in judgement, he had left Celtic and was no longer within the SFA's jurisdiction.

 

And, in the case of the much more serious matter of the statement published on the official Celtic website Petrie's committee decided the appropriate punishment was a censure.

 

Many may think this is a poor way for the Scottish Football Association to defend and protect the integrity of Scotland's officials.

 

A set of circumstances has come to light again this weekend via a splendid exclusive by Mark Guidi in the Daily Record which reveals that Steven Craven, the linesman at the centre of the rumpus over last Sunday's penalty decision u-turn, has been threatenen, while his two teenage sons have been subjected to verbal abuse.

 

Guidi's superb story also lifted the lid on just what happened between McDonald and Craven during that Dundee United-Celtic flashpoint.

 

According to what he wrote, it was McDonald who, on second thoughts, overturned his own decision without any input from Craven, something which now explains the mystery of why Craven moved to take up the position of a linesman at a spot kick - behind the goal line.

 

The Daily Record story also goes on to say that Craven feels he has been hung out to dry and used as a scapegoat by the SFA, and that he is ready to quit.

 

How much of his decision to stand down relates to the latest occasion in which the SFA seems to have failed to protect and official, and how much to being the latest official who - along with his family - has suffered threats and abuse after being involved in a decision which went against Celtic, is unclear.

 

Craven is probably weighing them both equally.

 

Willie Collum, his two linesmen and the fourth official, therefore know what awaits them should they be involved in any controversial decisions while taking charge of the first Old Firm game of the season.

 

On a wider perspective though, it will be interesting to wait and watch what the outcome is of the SFA's Rod Petrie led General Purposes Committtee's judgement on Dundee United manager Peter Houston's rant at Dougie McDonald .

 

And whether Petrie's committee make public any of the decisions they may take regarding the fall out from events at Tannadice.

 

Or indeed, whether the nation's media suffer another bout of collective amnesia.

 

http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.com/2010/10/sfa-try-to-keep-celtic-verdict-secret.html

[Guest PTB]

The tins keep banging on about foreign officials in the SPL. They would be the ones to suffer if they were ever introduced,

[Super_Ally 0]

The foul stats for the CL are interesting in that regard.

[pete 2,499]

The tins keep banging on about foreign officials in the SPL. They would be the ones to suffer if they were ever introduced,

 

Holland has Belgium officials as well as Dutch but a referee is a referee. They all make mistakes no matter where they come from. One Ref is better than the other but that is a fact throughout all of life. One player is better than another. One typist is better than another. I honestly believe that most refs are honest no matter what colour or creed they are. They just sometimes get it wrong.

[maineflyer 0]

Holland has Belgium officials as well as Dutch but a referee is a referee. They all make mistakes no matter where they come from. One Ref is better than the other but that is a fact throughout all of life. One player is better than another. One typist is better than another. I honestly believe that most refs are honest no matter what colour or creed they are. They just sometimes get it wrong.

 

Except, Holland and Belgium don't subject their referees to social and personal intimidation in the way the ta1g practices his particular brand of persuasion in this country. Referees are only human but our refs live in a hugely polarized community, one section of which not only openly and routinely questions their professional integrity but routinely threatens their personal safety and that of their families. Everyone should ask themselves ... just how easy is it to remain entirely "honest" in these circumstances. I suspect the truth is "not very".

[rbr 1,247]

Except, Holland and Belgium don't subject their referees to social and personal intimidation in the way the ta1g practices his particular brand of persuasion in this country. Referees are only human but our refs live in a hugely polarized community, one section of which not only openly and routinely questions their professional integrity but routinely threatens their personal safety and that of their families. Everyone should ask themselves ... just how easy is it to remain entirely "honest" in these circumstances. I suspect the truth is "not very".

 

 

Unless your name is Hugh , peter , graham or Andy , sorry not forgetting Davie , because they are totally 100% impartial dont you know and even if you do that's sectarian to even imply it

[pete 2,499]

Except, Holland and Belgium don't subject their referees to social and personal intimidation in the way the ta1g practices his particular brand of persuasion in this country. Referees are only human but our refs live in a hugely polarized community, one section of which not only openly and routinely questions their professional integrity but routinely threatens their personal safety and that of their families. Everyone should ask themselves ... just how easy is it to remain entirely "honest" in these circumstances. I suspect the truth is "not very".

 

That was actually what i meant that getting foreign refs won't change decisions against them. It would make the Ref's kids safer at school though so maybe it is not a bad thing.