Scottish FA gives detailed response to 'misleading' Rangers disciplinary complaint

The Scottish FA has responded to Rangers’ complaint about their disciplinary process, saying the Ibrox club made misleading comments about their judicial system.

Rangers went public with their anger over a £3,000 fine levied by an independent panel over comments made on club TV by former player John Brown.

While commentating on a match against Hibs at Easter Road, Brown claimed a controversial decision not to award Rangers a goal was “corrupt” and doubled down on his statement after his colleague corrected his language.

Following the decision, which punished the club under a rule that prevents allegations of “bias or incompetence” being directed at match officials, Rangers issued a lengthy statement claiming that similar incidents at other clubs have gone unpunished, and that the decision has “implications for clarity and confidence in the regulatory system”.

The club said that Brown has spoken “spontaneously and emotionally” and that his comments “come with the territory” of live broadcasting.

The Scottish FA has now responded, saying that the written reasons from the independent disciplinary panel will be published in due course, but taking issue with the points made by Rangers.

The governing body said that they had to address “misleading comment” in the interest of accuracy and said that the decision and punishment were in accordance by the rules that all member clubs are expected to adhere to.

A recent case involving Motherwell’s Richard Foster was highlighted, with Foster having been banned from the touchline for six games after making similar comments last season.

The SFA also answered a query about the “rationale behind different outcomes”, saying that the organisation’s compliance officer can take action short of a full disciplinary charge. Recent incidents involving three Rangers players were given as an example.

The statement read: “Furthermore, to address the comments regarding “rationale behind differing outcomes”, we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the Compliance Officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a Notice of Complaint.

“This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the Compliance Officer wrote to the club to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande.

“We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group.”

The statement concluded by reminding all clubs of their responsibilities in regard to referees, pointing out that the rule that Brown broke with his comments was brought in by clubs to protect referees following their strike in 2010.