Rangers lose McGregor after video review panel decision
No contact made but the intent sees McGregor suspended
The SFA have announced that Alan McGregor has been handed a one match suspension and an additional 12 disciplinary points have been added to his record. This follows an incident in Rangers 3-2 win at Pittodrie involving the goalkeeper and Chris Macguire.
Most people would agree that McGregor indulged in a bit of stupidity here and a ban was deserved for his kick-out.
However, there are more important questions needing to be answered from this situation.
Who decided that the kick would go to the disciplinary panel for review? Aberdeen v Rangers games are usually angry affairs and Rangers fans cite a stamp by Young on McCulloch as being worthy of being examined. Why was the McGregor incident reviewed but not the Young incident?
Most non Celtic and Rangers fans are quick to moan about the big two getting all the breaks but when it comes to video reviews, the Glasgow clubs definitely get the short end of the stick. There is more attention placed on them and far more interest in their games…but it seems that the video review panels convene for incidents involving these two teams more than any other club.
We moaned about it last season and we still believe there needs to be more transparency about how incidents are submitted for review. Is it a fourth official or the SFA observer in the stand? Is it member clubs or the media? Can anyone contact the SFA to highlight an incident of merit?
We all know Scottish football plays host to people with a massive chip on both shoulders, making the process a lot clearer and understandable would hopefully quieten down some of the hysteria that exists in the game.
The ban means that Neil Alexander will likely come in for the Rangers home match versus Motherwell and few fans would be too upset about this. Alexander is an able deputy to McGregor and his appearance shouldn’t impact on the Ibrox club too much.
The initial delay in reviewing the incident and the fact that the panel was held hours before a Scotland match has been unhelpful but without knowing the details we can’t complain too much about it. It would always be better to have incidents reviewed as quickly as possible but again, without knowing the process behind the review panels, it is impossible to say if there has been wrong doings or mistakes in this case.
The 12 penalty points awarded against McGregor may also have an impact later on in the season with these points being the basis for players earning suspensions. A booking here and there could see McGregor walking a suspension tightrope at the business end of the season.
How would you introduce transparency to the video review panel?
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
It’s pathetic and your correct in your assumption that the big two seem to get it in the neck constantly in this regard. Has there ever been a player outside the Old Firm that has been banned as a result of as video review?
Where does it all end? A one match ban for nearly kicking someone? So by that reckoning if someone dives in late for a tackle but the player is too fast and evades any contact, will that now see a red card?
We’ve had threads on here before about the SFA and it’s disciplinary nonsense, remember Loovens and the 5 months he had to wait before getting his ban?
They have set a very dangerous precedent now as I’m sure aggrieved fans and indeed clubs will be watching matches and looking for the same process to be followed through.
absolute joke , black blatently took big jelovic out with a tackle he wasnt even close to winning , big toley from inverness was that late with a tackle the game was finished. and mcgregor does a silly wee kick out missed by a yard and hes banned .
McGregor must be thinking is it worth it, less than 24 hours after saving the Scottish National team from a complete humpng he gets banned for nought from the same people he helped
Seems one rule for some, and nobody can tell me what that rule is, and one for others.
almost 2 weeks after the event hes hauled up??
No surprise really though
Well done on a fair article though
what about the swipe scott brown had at the hibes player the other week injuring him self on the process or as one commented the black tackle no wonder scottish footballs classed as a joke the fools that run it or should i say try to
Trueblue – think you mean Brown against Kilmarnock at Rugby Park but aye, that could have been examined.
As for the Black tackle – he was booked, therefore he was dealt with by the referee so it wouldn’t be considered as eligible for the video review panel.
Have to agree with the Blue Noses here although they should have done something about McGregors behaviour during the game against Hibs!!!!!!!!The outher thing about this situation is the way the SFA have went about there business very unprofessional then again why change the habits of a life time.With reference to Scott Brown dont think many Cetic fans would complain if he got a ban he is the most overated player in Scotland even though his performances have been a big improvement this season.
Will we ever know the process behind this? Who is and isn’t allowed to refer to the video panel.
The SFa were approached last season by a group representing various Celtic supporters groups and indivividuals on the need for more transparency and accountability at the SFA. The issue of the Review Panel procedures was specifically mentioned and the SFA subsequently replied to say that the process would be changed. So far I have seen no announcement of what those changes are but put down some of that delay to the chnange of CEO and the new man not arriving until this month.
So the SFA have indicated the RP process will change but not how and not what is in place until the changes become effective.
THE EPL model is a better one, although it too has flaws, but given the gap between SFA CEOs my bet is the change process has not happened yet. The same support group have I understand gone to the new CEO by letter with a view to ascertaining progress on the RP change and on wider transparency/accountability..issues