Rangers accused by Scottish FA of ‘misleading comments’ after fine for John Brown ‘corrupt’ remark | Football News

slick13 hours ago

0 0 5 minutes read

The Scottish Football Association (SFA) accused the Rangers of having published “deceptive comments” in their criticisms of punishment transmitted for a remark by former player John Brown on the club’s media channels.

The Rangers were sentenced to a fine of £ 3,000 following a disciplinary hearing after being accused of violation of rule 38, which stipulates that the clubs should not authorize any criticism of the matches of the match “calculated to indicate prejudices or incompetence” or “encroach on its character”.

Brown, while working as an expert on Rangers TV, said that a decision not to give Rangers a goal to Easter Road the last weekend of the League season was the “corruption” in the middle of a debate on the question of whether the ball had crossed the line.

The Rangers said Thursday that they had “reported many examples of similar incidents on the club’s channels” at the hearing and questioned “lack of consistency” with the approach of SFA.

A declaration of the SFA is read as follows: “We note the response of the Rangers to the determination of a recent independent court of the judicial panel. In the interest of accuracy, we wish to approach some of the deception comments contained therein.

“The sanction imposed by an independent panel was fully in accordance with the application of the rules. The most recent and most relevant example of a similar violation, the sanction imposed in Richard Foster by Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, testifies.

Motherwell’s development coach Foster received a six -game touchline ban last September after having marked the explanation of the guidance organization in a contactive manner by Rangers striker Cyriel DESSERS against St Johnstone “lying” while working as an expert for the BBC Scotland.

“In addition, to discuss comments concerning the” justification of different results “, we wish to underline the fact that surveys were undertaken in the previous cases described and that the compliance officers of the time considered good to issue a censorship through a warning letter for potential SFA violations.

“This proportionality system has been adopted since the creation of the judicial panel protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the compliance agent wrote to (Rangers) to warn the future driving of players following questions involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande.

“We also note that the Rangers intend to contact the association to request the clarity of the judicial panel protocol and its request. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP working group.

“We have asked for written reasons to the president of the panel involved in the court and in the interest of transparency will publish in time.

“Rule 38 of the JPP was introduced in response to the 2010 referee’s strike, when the match officials campaigned for greater protection after having undergone personal criticism supported by clubs and fans. Before a new season, we recall the clubs of their responsibilities in this regard.”

What does Brown do?

Nico Raskin seemed to have marked in the last rangers match of the season against Hibs, the ball seeming to cross the line before being erased by Rocky Bushiri before the hosts were equalized shortly after.

Var did not intervene because there was “no conclusive evidence / angle to say that the ball had completely crossed the line to assign the Rangers a second goal”.

Angry by the decision, Brown said on Rangers TV: “I would say it’s corrupt.”

The commentator Tom Miller warned: “Well, I’m not sure that we can really say that”, before Brown continued: “Well, I say.”

What did the Rangers say?

In a declaration strongly written on Thursday, the Rangers said that they had “reported many examples of similar incidents on the club’s channels” as part of their defense adding that “these incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how much they are applied in a coherent manner”.

“To our knowledge, none of these cases seems to have led to accusations against the respective clubs.

“The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA FA FA police leaves more questions than answers. This is why we will contact the CEO and president of the Scottish FA and to seek the policies and treatments that the compliance officer has in place, if necessary, to ensure a coherent and proportional approach to the application and equal treatment of member clubs.

“We will also ask the Scottish FA if he accepts that a rule that cannot be applied consistently in all clubs and all platforms may lose credibility as a fair and enforceable regulation.”

The declaration added: “By choosing to continue this case, the Scottish FA opened the door to a more in -depth examination of the way in which similar situations are managed in the future. If this is now the standard, they will be closely monitored to ensure that it is applied at all levels, regularly, without exception and without favor.”

Full Rangers Declaration

“We believe that it is necessary to highlight the wider concerns that this result raises and the broader implications that this has more clarity and confidence in their regulatory processes.

“John Brown has spoken emotionally and spontaneously as a person who cares deeply about the club. His words were not scripted, and it was not an official comment of the club. The decision defines a precedent, however, where it is enough to trigger a formal sanction.

“As part of our defense today, we have reported many examples of similar incidents on club channels.

“The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA police for similar incidents leaves more questions than answers. Platforms may lose credibility as a fair and enforceable regulation.

“Our objective here is to understand the justification of the different results. A lack of coherence, or its perception, undermines confidence in the disciplinary process and exposes all member clubs to uncertainty about what is and is not authorized.

“There are no clear advice on how clubs should manage live broadcasting content, although we noted that the panel has recognized that the club’s internal editorial directives could serve as a constructive step for others in the future.

“To be clear, we have referenced these other examples so as not to suggest that they should have caused sanctions, but to highlight a clear inconsistency in the way in which similar incidents have been treated. The club’s media canals are, by nature, passionate and supporters. The informal, ironic and emotional comments are delivered with the territory, in particular live.

“But, by choosing to continue this case, the Scottish FA opened the door to a more in -depth examination of the way in which similar situations are managed in the future. If this is now the standard, they will be closely monitored to ensure that it is applied in all areas, in a coherent, without exception and without favor.”