[stemjsim]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/ hi/football/t...tic/7087888.stm


Slightly worrying that this has happened, this could lead the way to chaos in the game as the Referee's will be desparing that any desicion they make will be overturned, so what is the point.

[glasnost]

stemjsim, on Nov 11 2007, 12:13, said:

http://news.bbc.co. uk/sport1/hi/football/t...tic/7087888.stm


Slightly worrying that this has happened, this could lead the way to chaos in the game as the Referee's will be desparing that any desicion they make will be overturned, so what is the point.

On the contrary, it would be slightly worrying if there was no right of appeal and referees could dish out punishment without any means of questioning it.

[Ric]

I can see why people think this is a slippery slope to the American style "lawyer with everything" mentality. I don't actually see that Strachan has done anything wrong. If the lawyer was allowed to represent Strachan then that's an issue between the tribunal and whatever body governs the referees for these sorts of meetings and nothing to do with Strachan himself.

I also love the way that Dougal inadvertently (or perhaps not.. ) accuses the tribunal of being simpletons; "In simple terms, there was sufficient doubt put into the minds of Lord McLean and his colleagues on the appeals board by Celtic's solicitor, who in my mind did a good job."

Is he suggesting that the the judge and his associates were so weak willed and simple in thought that once a lawyer representing Celtic's case had spoken no other opinion would be heard?

Sour grapes, imo. He was judged to have wrongly sent him to the stand, Dougal throws his toys out of the pram, everyone laughs at him.

[stemjsim]

glasnost, on Nov 11 2007, 12:56, said:

On the contrary, it would be slightly worrying if there was no right of appeal and referees could dish out punishment without any means of questioning it.

Thats not the problem here. They appealed 2 times and used lawyers, something the ref's aren't allowed to have, to totally overturn a ref's decision. If you keep doing this the ref's are just going to quit the game then we'll be proper fucked. The ref's get a hard enough deal without being "cross examined" on a desicion they made in good faith during a match. In future is a ref going to think to himself "well I could send him to the stands, but whats the point?" letting a manager/coach continue.

[glasnost]

stemjsim, on Nov 11 2007, 13:10, said:

Thats not the problem here. They appealed 2 times and used lawyers, something the ref's aren't allowed to have, to totally overturn a ref's decision. If you keep doing this the ref's are just going to quit the game then we'll be proper fucked. The ref's get a hard enough deal without being "cross examined" on a desicion they made in good faith during a match. In future is a ref going to think to himself "well I could send him to the stands, but whats the point?" letting a manager/coach continue.

Well he might have made the decision in good faith, but it has susequently it has been deemed to be the wrong decision. I would rather justice was done than having someone serve a ban for which they shouldn't.

[stemjsim]

glasnost, on Nov 11 2007, 13:17, said:

Well he might have made the decision in good faith, but it has susequently it has been deemed to be the wrong decision. I would rather justice was done than having someone serve a ban for which they shouldn't.

Maybe, but the fact that a lawyer was not an option for Dougal when he was at the tribunal made it a very one sided affair. The lawyer does this kind of thing for a living so of course he was going to "prove" doubt of the decision to send strachan to the stands. My problem is with the SPL/SFA for making this such a one sided fight in strachans favour, and the effect on referee's morale and confidence of being backed up when they make a decision.

[Ric]

stemjsim, on Nov 11 2007, 13:25, said:

Maybe, but the fact that a lawyer was not an option for Dougal when he was at the tribunal made it a very one sided affair. The lawyer does this kind of thing for a living so of course he was going to "prove" doubt of the decision to send strachan to the stands. My problem is with the SPL/SFA for making this such a one sided fight in strachans favour, and the effect on referee's morale and confidence of being backed up when they make a decision.

Are you saying that a tribunal team led by person who faces lawyers day in day out as part of his job, was swayed by one? If you do, you're obviously crediting Strachan's lawyer with some pretty amazing verbal skills.

Not only that, the lawyer was there to debate the case based on the rules, not whether the offence happened. Basically Dougal was wrong to send him to the stand in the way the rules were interpreted. I don't see a problem with that.

The *only* problem I can see is the fact that referees are not allowed legal counsel, but even then that's no wonder because for this case Dougal was a witness and not the defendant. Would you expect every witness in a case to have a lawyer?

[HibeeJibee]

Part of the problem is that the referees, and the appeals panel, are both run by the SFA. Thus the SFA legal guys can't represent Dougal, and clearly he isn't going to shell out on a legal team himself. The argument that 'he deals with lawyers regularly in his job' is a nonsense - the bloke who runs the Greggs on Royal Mile probably deals with lawyers daily, it could as easily have been a referee with no legal knowledge whatsoever in that tribunal. I have two problems with the system, (1) the way appeals are administrated, (2) way they are dealt with.

Number 1: they seem to take ages to get made, ages to get heard. Think of Kingston and his race allegations, he played for MONTHS before it was sorted. Compare this to the EPL where most decisions get made in weeks. IMO, you should have 2 weeks from an incident occurring (give them written summary in the form of a docket in the immediate aftermath of the game, with details of where to get the full details i.e. put onus onto alleged offender) to appeal, the appeal should be held within 1 week of it being made. Whole process take less than a month.

Number 2: lots of clubs/managers appeal just to make their manager/players available for upcoming games. Thus a failed appeal should result in a doubling of the original punishment.

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 11 November 2007 - 23:47

[Law Stud]

I wonder if the referee has shown Strachan a yellow card, then a red card, would that have prevented the whole situation and is that something that the SFA should issue in their guidelines for dealing with managers who are abusing match officials.

[HibeeJibee]

Stuart Dickson, on Nov 12 2007, 00:57, said:

I wonder if the referee has shown Strachan a yellow card, then a red card, would that have prevented the whole situation and is that something that the SFA should issue in their guidelines for dealing with managers who are abusing match officials.

That's a fair point, I wonder if it has been considered. One problem (unrelated to Strachan) that must face referees in the amateur levels is - where on earth do you send an abusive manager? The shower rooms??

[Law Stud]

HibeeJibee, on Nov 12 2007, 00:58, said:

That's a fair point, I wonder if it has been considered. One problem (unrelated to Strachan) that must face referees in the amateur levels is - where on earth do you send an abusive manager? The shower rooms??

Yeah, what they do is put the manager on "report" which doesn't help much if they are being chased back to their car by a thug weilding a bottle...as I saw happen once many years ago.

[Senator Frimpton]

Damn! I thought this was gonna be thread on George W. Bush..

I'll, er.. get my um.. coat