SFA Compliance Officer

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    Wie bereits angekündigt, tritt am 25.5.2018 eine neue, EU-weite Datenschutzverordnung in Kraft. Deshalb haben wir unsere Datenschutzerklärung​ aktualisiert. Für User hat sich im Grunde nichts geändert, aber die Erklärung ist jetzt gesetzeskonform :)

    Um auf der sicheren Seite zu sein, haben wir uns dazu entschlossen, dass jeder User ab 25.5.2018 um 00:00 Uhr die neue Datenschutzerklärung akzeptieren muss, bevor er posten kann.

    • SFA Compliance Officer

      DIe SFA führte vor einiger Zeit den sogenannten Compliance Officer ein, der bestimmte Situationen nach einem Spiel bewerten soll und gegebenenfalls nachträglich Sanktionen bzw. STrafen verhängt.

      Wieso, weshalb, warum? Nun, der SFA Boss hat mal eine Aufgabenbeschreibung gegeben:

      SFA release wide-ranging Q&A addressing compliance officer role, fast track tribunals and bid to improve 'transparency'
      The disciplinary procedure has been a hot topic in recent weeks and the governing body has responded.

      The SFA have aimed to quell growing frustrations over their compliance process after releasing a wide-ranging Q&A covering a host of recent talking points.
      The disciplinary procedure has been a hot topic in recent weeks following the decision not to take action against Alfredo Morelos following a series of incidents during Rangers win over Celtic.
      Celtic released a statement criticising the decision after the Colombian had clashed with Scott Brown, Ryan Christie and Anthony Ralston.
      Referee John Beaton also received threats after the derby match between the sides.
      Record Sport exclusively revealed Scottish whistlers believe Beaton and Willie Collum have been hung out to dry by their employers after a string of "mysterious inconsistencies".

      But that's not been the only issue this season with supporters, players and managers being left scratching their heads over a host of incidents with many seeking clarification over the mandate of the compliance officer.
      Fans have been clamoring for a reply and the governing body has responded by choosing to release a statement at the close of play on a Friday night.

      Here's the Q&A in full

      Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

      SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.
      "When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
      "When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

      How does the claims process work?
      SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation.
      "A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.
      "It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

      Has the system changed this season?

      FA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family. "There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

      What information is published?

      SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.
      "The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

      In summary

      "We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.
      "It is our responsibility to protect match officials and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency."


      Die amtierende CO:

      SFA schrieb:

      Saturday 18 August 2018

      The Scottish FA is pleased to confirm that Clare Whyte has been appointed as our new Compliance Officer, replacing the outgoing Tony McGlennan.
      Clare joins from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, where she is currently a Procurator Fiscal Depute.

      She obtained her undergraduate degree and diploma in Legal Practice from the University of Strathclyde before graduating from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, with a Masters degree in International Human Rights Law.

      Clare, who has experience of grassroots football, will begin her new role later this month and engage in a handover period with the outgoing Compliance Officer.
      Ian Maxwell, Scottish FA Chief Executive, said: “I am delighted that we have been able to appoint someone with Clare’s credentials to what is an important role within the Scottish FA.

      “It’s also a vital position within Scottish football as a whole that comes with its own unique challenges and pressures and I am convinced Clare will be an asset to the organisation and the game in this country.

      “I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Tony for his excellent work over the last four years with the Scottish FA.
      “Tony has worked tirelessly to modernise a judicial system we can be proud of.
      “A few of those tweaks have come into play this season after a year of consultation. It’s a legacy Tony can take great satisfaction in and I am sure Clare will benefit from what has been put in place in the weeks and months to come.
      “I know I speak for everyone in here by wishing him all the very best in his future plans.”


      Man kann sich die Judical Protocols - also die Richtlinien des CO etc. herunterladen:
      scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/f…ary/disciplinary-updates/ (rechts, lädt eine PDF herunter)

      Mal zur Übersicht aus dem Dokument:


      B1 Unsporting Behaviour

      There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour which include, but are not limited to, when a player:
      a) Impedes an opponent with contact
      b) Recklessly trips or attempts to trip an opponent
      c) Recklessly tackles or challenges an opponent
      d) Recklessly kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
      e) Denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity as defined by Law 12
      f) Holds or pushes an opponent
      g) Commits an offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack outwith the penalty area
      h) Excessively celebrates the scoring of a goal as defined by Law 12
      i) Handles the ball deliberately
      j) Shows a lack of respect for the game
      k) Commits an act of simulation
      l) Commits any other offence(s) deemed by a match official to be unsporting behaviour

      B2 Dissent by Word or Action
      B3 Persistently offending against Laws of the Game
      B4 Delaying the restart of play
      B5 Failing to respect the required distance at restart of play
      B6 Entering or re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

      ... mehr kommt.

      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!

    • Der erste CO gab November 2014 mal eine Aufgabenbeschreibung etc. ...

      Vincent Lunny: Q&A with former SFA compliance officer

      Former Scottish Football Association compliance officer Vincent Lunny has spoken publicly for the first time since leaving the role.
      Lunny was the SFA's first compliance officer, and after three years in the role has left to train to become an advocate.
      In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Scotland's Jim Spence, Lunny offered an insight into the role and some of the difficulties he faced trying to enforce the laws of the game.
      Here are some of the questions put to Lunny, and his answers:

      How would you explain the role of compliance officer?
      "It's probably easier if I split it into two - the panel and how it's made up, and how I fitted in to that.
      "The panel is made up of about 100 volunteers. They were from a broad spectrum of people from both football and non-football positions.
      "From the football side there were some ex-players but not a great many, and we were always looking to get more to join the panel. A number of former grade one referees, who were particularly useful with regard to red card appeals. The third group from the football side were in relation to club directors, people from various clubs from all levels from the Premiership down to lower divisions.

      "From outside football we had civil servants, solicitors, advocates, QCs, sheriffs and retired High Court judges, so a broad mix of legal and non-legal, with civil servants, businessmen, people from other disciplinary, tribunal backgrounds and panel members from other sports, who all brought their own experiences as judges and jurys effectively for the panel.
      "Every case was run before a panel of three, they would be picked usually on the Monday or Tuesday, once we knew what the business was. They would sit and hear the evidence from my side and the club side, and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. I fitted into that effectively as the prosecutor. Where cases were brought to my attention I would prepare them and present them to the panel at the Thursday meetings and ask them to find the breach proved, and then proceed to sanction if that was appropriate."

      Is the role and the panel's role at arm's length from the SFA as governing body?
      "The panel, certainly yes, very much independent. They are volunteers, they give up their time freely because they love football and they are certainly at arm's length and I think the results where they go against the SFA, or against me I should say, are testament to the fact they are at arm's length. I wasn't at arm's length, I was paid by the SFA. Having said that, I was very much left to get on with the job and the decision whether or not to take the case forward was solely mine."

      What about suggestions that there was 'trial by TV'?
      "It was never the case. Trial by TV was an argument we had almost every year. With regard to the fast-track, the compliance officer, myself, was taking forward about a dozen cases a year, whereas the clubs were appealing red cards by TV evidence usually, in about 25 to 30 cases a year, so the video evidence was used by clubs to their advantage twice as much as I was using it to their detriment, effectively.

      "If you look at it in the context of the annual turnover of cases, about a dozen were taken forward by me and I was processing about 300 cases a year, so a tiny percentage of the overall business. The vast majority of the work came through referee reports, usually in relation to manager misconduct on the touchline."

      How did the system work in terms of reaching judgements?
      "The system is based on civil proceedings as set out in the protocol and it was always set up on that basis. In all civil proceedings the standard is the balance of probabilities - beyond reasonable doubt is reserved for crimes because there is an awful lot more at stake and no matter how serious we take the football, and a lot is at stake in some of these cases, no-one's liberty is on the line, no-one is going to jail if they are found in breach of the protocol.
      "It's difficult when it comes down to one person's word against another's and the panel have to be satisfied that the case is proved on the balance of probabilities."

      Should the hearings be open to the public?
      "I wouldn't be in favour of that. The panel members are unpaid, giving up their free time, and we saw following the Rangers case where panel members were named in the press, that there were repercussions from that and police were camped outside those individuals' doors for a number of days.
      "In another case a panel member's car was vandalised after his name became known, and following that I'd be in favour of matters proceeding as they are. If the public were granted access I think it would turn into a circus."

      Should the public be given an abridged version of the judgement and the findings?
      "It's a possibility and it's something we looked at over the three years. Again the difficulty was we're dealing with volunteers as oppose to the FA, for example, where in Wembley the panel members are paid and there's an expectation they will produce written reasons for every case. It was something that was discussed and might be seen more frequently going forward if the case is serious enough or complicated enough."

      How did you react to criticism from a manager in public?
      "The first manager who had a pop at me was Terry Butcher. He came out of a hearing, 'kangaroo court' was mentioned and Terry wasn't happy. Our head of communications set up a meeting with Terry for him and me to sit down. For me, I was a bit star-struck, it was me and Terry Butcher having a coffee at Hampden so it was quite an experience. I sat with him and explained how the system worked and Terry came away with a changed view of the system.
      "Terry was thereafter very positive, he would come down to all his red card appeals and latterly with a few of his cases, he would come in for his red card appeal with a ball under his arm, and re-enact the challenge in front of the panel on the carpet. I remember one where his player had been sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity and Terry was rolling the ball along the carpet, he had one of the panel members, who was about 70, up pretending he was the defender and Terry was trying to show the tackle. The rest of us were thinking 'he's going to kill him,' this guy's about 70 and Terry Butcher's going in to tackle him on a carpet, it's not going to end well. Having gone from being very critical of the system, Terry bought into it and used it to his advantage, as he should have done, where his players were wrongly sent off."

      Was there more pressure with high-profile cases?
      "It wasn't something I was used to with regard to the public pressure. Where that manifested the most was any time I was sending out a complaint, where it was a Neil Lennon or Ally McCoist case, in fact anyone in the Premiership, I was always extra careful over my spelling and grammar. The last thing I wanted was that in the public domain and not being able to write properly."

      Do you think the average fan has a real understanding of the difficulty you faced?
      "It's hard to answer that. My experiences were quite surprising to be honest, I got a lot of letters and emails over the three years and it always surprised me how polite most of them were, despite what you think about abuse, and there were things written on fan forums that were abusive and unpleasant and I tended to ignore them.

      "They key things for fans to appreciate is that the SFA is simply, through the compliance officer, presenting a case. The Scottish FA doesn't decide the case one way or another, that's for the panel to do, who are as we said at arm's length from the SFA. If the fans understand that core element then they're a good way to appreciating what the job entails and how difficult it can be."

      What advice would you give to your successor?
      "Don't read the fan websites. Sit down in your office with the door closed, read the reports and make your decision based on your gut reaction as to whether there's been a rule breached or not, and process the evidence on that basis and take it forward."

      How would you sum up your time in the job?
      "A great experience, there aren't many jobs or opportunities you get that really change your career or your life and working with the Scottish FA as compliance officer was certainly one of them. In particular it was the only opportunity I was ever going to get of playing at Hampden, and for me that was the highlight of the three years."

      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!

    • Here's how the Notice of Complaint/Tribunal table looks...

      Rangers - 9
      Kilmarnock - 6
      Hearts - 6
      Aberdeen - 5
      Hibs - 5
      Livingston - 5
      St Johnstone - 4
      Motherwell - 4
      Dundee - 4
      Hamilton - 3
      St Mirren - 1
      Celtic - 0

      Amazing that ‍♂️
      — Four Lads Had a Dream (@4ladshadadream) February 10, 2019

      Und in den letzten 2 Spielzeiten ... twitter.com/durko92/status/1094647356119793666/video/1
      :rfc: The team that drinks together, wins together :rfc:
    • Dinge ...


      ... dumm, wenn die Statistik nicht lügt. 52 Mal wurde jemand der Premiership vom CO belangt. Durchschnitt wäre 4.3 Mal pro Mannschaft. Wir liegen beim Doppelten, die Yahoos haben nicht eine Einladung bekommen.

      Und dann schafft ein Yahoo-Fan namens Paul Larkin in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Verein und dessen Beauftragten Tom Boyd eine "Dokumentation" namens "Anyone but Celtic", mit der er beweisen will, daß die SFA und die Schiedsrichter seit Jahrzehnten für die Rangers arbeiten und Celtic benachteiligen. Da schaue man doch bitte mal auf die Verteilung der letzten Pokale und Meisterschaften und die hahnebüchenen Entscheidungen nicht zuletzt in Spielen gegen uns oder eben den fehlenden Reaktionen des CO auf Fouls und Simulationen oder noch übler die Gelbe und Rote Karten Statistik.

      Da fehlen einem die Worte.
      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Der Berliner ()

    • Einmal lachen für Fortgeschrittene...

      Scottish FA Statement: Referees and Disciplinary System

      Der entscheidende Passus:
      When an incident has been identified, the Compliance Officer asks one fundamental question: was the incident seen, in its entirety, by the match officials? If the answer is yes, the matter is closed pursuant to IFAB Law 5: the match official’s decision is final.

      So kennen wir es ja auch aus Deutschland. Was der SR nicht sieht, soll nachträglich bestraft werden, alles andere ist Tatsachenentscheidung. Also die Zeit vor dem VAR.

      Das ist also der Grund, warum die ganzen Celtic- oder Kilmarnockspieler nicht bestraft wurden. Die SR hatten es gesehen und anders beurteilt. *Hüstel*.

      Warum wurde also McGregor anschließend gesperrt? Nun, weil der SR die Szene nicht gesehen hatte. Weil der SR die Szene nicht gesehen hatte. Ich wiederhole: Weil der SR die Szene nicht gesehen hatte.

      Hier unter Punkt 9 des Urteils nachzulesen. Auch das von Morelos noch anbei.

      Anständige Menschen würden diese ständigen Lügen selbst beschämen!!
      :rfc: The team that drinks together, wins together :rfc:

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Caledonia ()

    • 'Celtic run the SFA' Rangers hero Nacho Novo makes astonishing 'mafia' claim

      Natürlich schon sehr deutlich von Nacho ausgedrückt, aber Himmel, es ist ja einfach so.

      Und wichtig ist einfach auch diese Aussagez: "It’s just these stupid things. If it’s one rule for one team, then that should be the rule for others as well. You can’t keep Celtic directors or Rangers directors on the SFA panel."

      Darum geht es. Um eine faire Linie. Es geht nicht darum stattdessen seine Leute da reinzukriegen. Würde es auch nicht besser machen.
      :rfc: The team that drinks together, wins together :rfc:
    • Halten wir kurz fest:

      Brown klarer Ellenbogen gegen Morelos

      McGregor gegen Morelos / Abseits das keines war / Morelos weggeschubst / Morelos weggesenst (wirklich Gelb)

      ... und Simunovic knockt Shaw mit einem klaren Ellenbogencheck aus, nicht mal Gelb. Brown springt Candeias in die Knöchel, dazu seine Schauspielerei gestern.

      Was braucht man noch, um diesen Verband und seine Angestellten als völlig unfähig und als institutionell "biased" zu charakterisieren?
      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!

    • Und die Farce geht wieder los: Lenny-Bhoy weint und will Flanagan bestraft sehen ...


      Scottish Sun schrieb:

      FLAN DOWN? Rangers star Jon Flanagan facing possible Old Firm charge after Scott Brown elbow
      The Gers full-back appeared to connect with the Hoops skipper in the face with a swinging elbow

      RANGERS star Jon Flanagan is facing a possible Old Firm charge.
      SunSport understands SFA compliance officer Clare Whyte has spent the last 24 hours considering his apparent elbow on Celtic skipper Scott Brown – captured by TV cameras – in the second half of Gers’ 2-0 win.

      Ref Kevin Clancy chose to book the full-back, but Hoops interim boss Neil Lennon slammed Clancy for not giving a straight red card.
      It’s believed Whyte is likely to decide today what action, if any, she will take, while also considering several other incidents from Sunday’s clash.
      Speaking about the incident Lennon said: "It's a red card. Again.
      "How the referee has not given that as a red card I don't know.

      "It's an elbow into Scott's face.
      "Their bench is shouting, 'it's him again' but it's a clear elbow into his face."
      Asked if he feels Brown is targeted, Lennon responded: "Well you've seen it, so you tell me.
      "It's there in technicolour. Jon has got his hands up first of all.
      "Broony is moving to get away and then he elbows him in the jaw. It's a straight red card - it's totally unacceptable for the referee not to give a red card.
      "You can dress it up any way you want. You elbow somebody in the face, you're off.

      "So they've got away with one there.
      "Maybe because it's Broony again. I don't know.
      "Anyway, let's not get away from the fact we were flat and deserved to lose the game."
      And quizzed if he had been elbowed in the face, Brown - who was punched by Kent at Parkhead in March - said: "Yeah, another one to the face.

      "Surprisingly, somebody didn't see that again. "He said it was a yellow because it didn't hit me in the face.
      'I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the game. "We didn't deserve to win, Rangers played better than we did."
      But skipper Brown refused to reveal what else whistler Clancy said, adding: "There's always a linesman there who can see it from the corner flag.
      "There are two people there. Both said they didn't properly see it, so it's a hard one for them."

      Man gehe nach oben und lese mal nach. Der Schiri sah es, der Schiri sah, das das Gesicht nicht getroffen wurde, der Schiri gab Gelb. Demzufolge geht jeder Grund, daß die CO einschreiten könnte den Bach runter. Nach ihren eigenen Regeln.

      Tut sie es dennoch, biegen sie für eine Simulation die eigenen Regeln. Ich nenne sowas - eingedenk der Inaktivität gegenüber allem, was die Yahoos tun und dürfen, schlicht und einfach Wettbewerbsverzerrung.
      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!

    • Und zack schlägt der grüne Filz wieder zu.

      Jon Flanagan has been charged by the SFA for elbowing Scott Brown during Sunday's Old Firm game and is facing a 2 match ban. Hearing on Thursday.

      Und das, obwohl die Szene durch den SR per Tatsachenentscheidung bereits mit Gelb geahndet wurde.

      Mal ehrlich, @FlyingScot, geht es noch korrupter?

      Überflüssig zu erwähnen, dass Simunovic nichts passiert.
      :rfc: The team that drinks together, wins together :rfc:

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 2 mal editiert, zuletzt von Caledonia ()

    • Es gibt eine kleine Hintertürregel, die die SFA nutzen kann, in den Richtlinien des CO. Aber die wird nur und einzig gegen uns angewandt und selbst klarste Fouls der Yahoos nicht oder im Nachhinein geahndet. Da unsere Spieler ein ums andere Mal gesperrt werden, ist das ein Wettbewerbsnachteil für uns und somit Wettbewerbsverzerrung. Da kann man mit Gericht vor gehen.

      Schon bei diesem Ding damals entschieden der CO und seine drei Schattenrichter, daß man diese Glatte Rote des Refs in Gelb ummünzen kann, denn somit durfte er wenig später gegen uns ran.

      Brown gegen Boyce

      Damals hatte Boyce zunächst Brown gefoult und keine Minute später rannte Brown hinter ihm her und sprang ihm von hinten volle Kanne in die Knöchel.

      Oder hier ... nichts anderes als das was McGregor gegen Aberdeen machte. Gelb und aus:

      Scot Brown damals gegen Ian Black ... typisches Brown-Gelb

      Und er lacht und gibt dem Schiri ein Daumen-Hoch ... Mr. Madden.

      Oder dann gegen Candeias ... Potential für nen Knöchelbrecher


      oder damals gegen Salim Kerkar ... und Walker weiß nicht, ob es ein Gelbe-Karte - Foul ist. Nee is klar


      ... und die Hackfresse lacht ...

      Jenseits von Schottland ... Rot für nahezu nichts.

      Gæð a Wyrd swa hio scel!