Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Ryan Cryle: Inconsistency reigns as SFA panel deems Aberdeen’s Graeme Shinnie appeal ‘frivolous’ – despite near-identical appeals being upheld this season

Whether you think Shinnie's divisive dismissal at Ross County was a red or not, it is indeed "grossly unfair" to punish the Dons further for appealing it.

Aberdeen skipper Graeme Shinnie. Image :SNS
Aberdeen skipper Graeme Shinnie. Image :SNS

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.

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.

Graeme Shinnie’s challenge on Jack Baldwin which resulted in a red card. Image: SNS

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.

Aberdeen skipper Graeme Shinnie is sent off against Ross County by referee Euan Anderson. Image: Shutterstock

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. 

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.

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.

There are questions to answer for the SFA. Image: Shutterstock

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