There is rightly anger at Aberdeen this morning after captain Graeme Shinnie was handed a four-game ban by Scottish FA following the club’s appeal against his red card at Ross County.
Shinnie was dismissed late in the 1-0 victory in Dingwall on Friday night, after catching Staggies player Jack Baldwin with his follow-through from a 50/50 challenge.
Referee Euan Anderson and his assistants at the ground clearly didn’t think anything serious had happened at first glance, as he initially awarded a throw-in after the ball ricocheted out of play.
But VAR official Greig Aitken requested Anderson head to the monitor to review the incident with the aid of the various slowed-down angles, before – as we’ve come to expect once VAR is involved – the referee dismissed the Reds midfielder.
🚨BREAKING: Aberdeen’s appeal over the red card shown to Graeme Shinnie has been dismissed.
He’ll now serve a four match ban, three as a result of the sending off & one extra for submitting an appeal that is deemed unlikely to succeed ⬇️pic.twitter.com/O6GKkDCjoW
— Sky Sports Scotland (@ScotlandSky) April 18, 2023
Whether Shinnie’s challenge on Baldwin was a great challenge or a dangerous/reckless one was one which immediately split pundits and fans.
Sky Sports’ team covering the televised game were divided, showing Aberdeen manager Barry Robson a replay of the incident soon after full-time.
What wasn’t up for debate was Shinnie got to the ball first, won it cleanly, and then caught Baldwin with the same leg.
Robson – who was firmly of the view Shinnie didn’t deserve to be sent off – said: “He slid in, won the ball and it bounced off him and his leg actually started to pull back after it.”
The Dons manager then suggested Aberdeen would appeal the decision, which was confirmed on Monday, with appeal fast-tracked to Tuesday tea-time.
I thought SFA would throw out Shinnie appeal due to tackling rules mess – but it was worth a go
I came down on the “it shouldn’t be a red card” side of the line, given it was pure bad luck following a great challenge which meant Shinnie connected with Baldwin – and wouldn’t have happened had the Dons man, for example, in the split-second he had to go into the challenge, come in at a slightly different angle.
As Robson said, it is clear Shinnie started to pull his leg back as soon as the ball was won, and there was no intention to hurt the opponent – who may not have been caught had he timed his own challenge better.
Nevertheless, in the days since, I’ve also said several times to colleagues and friends, while I thought it was worth a go, I didn’t think there was much chance of SFA appeals panel – comprised of independent members – overturning the red.
It has been clear for a couple of season (at least) the rulings which are being made around 50/50 challenges, and specifically, players following through and making contact with their rival, although designed to protect players, are a mess.
Some referees are asking players to do the impossible, and kill all of their momentum after winning the ball, and – if they don’t – it seems to be totally up to each individual official’s interpretation of the present laws of the game as to whether a challenge is a good one where the losing player has come out second-best, or a dangerous/reckless one.
It’s a total lottery.
Which is why I felt it would be easy for the appeals panel to simply look at the same slow motion angles as Anderson did, take the same view as their referee and throw out Aberdeen’s appeal.
Three near-identical Premiership appeals… So how can two be successful, and one be ‘frivolous’?
However, the imposition of an additional game’s ban on Shinnie (on top of the two-game ban for the straight red, and third game for it being his second red card of the season) is baffling and a disgrace.
Dons fans reacted with fury to the initial sending off, and then the appeal being thrown out.
But their anger has understandably turned nuclear over the the news their skipper will now serve a four-game ban, with an extra game added due to the SFA deeming the Reds’ appeal to be without any merit under article 13.21.8 of the Judicial Panel Protocol.
Really struggling to see how the appeal could be deemed frivolous when (a) none of the on field officials at the time even gave a foul, let alone a card and (b) there's been the level of debate played out in the media as to whether it was or wasn't a red.
— The ABZ Football Podcast ⭐⭐ (@AbzPodcast) April 18, 2023
Aberdeen did not mince their words in their own statement late on Tuesday night, describing the inference they had brought an appeal with no hope of being upheld before the panel as “not only insulting to the club but grossly unfair and entirely untrue.”
They are understood to view this part of the panel’s ruling as both scandalous and ludicrous, and added: “A further match ban seems ridiculously harsh and unnecessary.”
I am in total agreement with this sentiment.
It is my understanding Aberdeen felt they had a strong case to appeal Shinnie’s red card and were ready to cite two examples from other Premiership matches this season where red cards, both produced following VAR reviews, were overturned.
The first was St Johnstone forward Nicky Clark’s red at Ibrox being downgraded to a yellow on appeal.
Clark was dismissed following a 50/50 follow-through on Rangers’ Ryan Jack – which was near-identical to the Shinnie-Baldwin incident.
Yet this red card for Nicky Clark was overturned on appeal? Straight leg challenge but tried to pull out of the challenge. Shinnies wasn’t a straight leg challenge and also went to pull out after he’d clearly taken the ball first. #CORRUPTSFA pic.twitter.com/ykr3wSdM7k
— 🅿️ (@BigBadP) April 18, 2023
The second example Aberdeen brought with them to Hampden was the appeal won by Dundee United after Tony Watt was dismissed for catching Motherwell’s Sean Goss with a follow-through at Tannadice, which also echoed Friday night’s flashpoint.
However, it was made clear to the Dons no prior cases would be taken into account by the appeals panel when it came to their fight against Shinnie’s red.
Why on earth is the concept of precedent, which is a key part of our legal system, not also a factor in the SFA appeals system? And how, as Aberdeen also noted in their statement, will we ever get any degree of consistency if it is not something which is considered?
It is laughable you can have a situation where three near-identical incidents are brought before the appeals panel, and while two are upheld, the other is somehow judged to be “frivolous” and a waste of everyone’s time.
The SFA clearly don’t want every red card shown every weekend being appealed, and there’s likely an instinct to back their referees given recent criticism and abuse.
But in this instance the punishment meted out leaves a sour taste – an extra punishment which says dissent will not be tolerated and decisions, divisive or not, cannot be questioned.
The final line of Aberdeen’s statement read: “We are publicly asking the Scottish FA to urgently review our appeal with a new panel.”
It has happened before, when the SFA threw out the independent appeals panel’s initial ruling to back a yellow shown to Inverness’ James Keatings for diving in 2020.
Will common-sense prevail and, at the very least, see the SFA take steps to remove the additional game from Shinnie’s ban?
Given the inconsistency that permeates the application of the rules in Scotland, which has only been made worse by VAR, I won’t be holding my breath.
Conversation