SFA hit back at Rangers statement as John Brown TV row takes fresh twist

The SFA have accused Rangers of issuing ‘misleading comments’ after the Ibrox club criticised the punishment they received for a remark made by former player John Brown on club media channels.

Rangers were fined £3,000 following a disciplinary hearing after being charged with breaching rule 38, which states clubs should not allow any criticism of match officials ‘calculated to indicate bias or incompetence’ or to ‘impinge upon his character’.

While working as a pundit on Rangers TV, Brown claimed a decision not to award Rangers a goal at Easter Road on the final weekend of the league season was ‘corrupt’ amid a debate over whether the ball had crossed the line.

This week Rangers claimed they had ‘flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels’ during the hearing and questioned a ‘lack of consistency’ in the SFA’s approach.

In response, the governing body pointed out that Motherwell development coach Richard Foster was handed a six-match touchline ban for a similar breach last September after branding the SFA’s explanation for a contentiously-awarded Rangers goal against St Johnstone as ‘lies’ while working as a pundit for the BBC.

They also claimed that investigations were undertaken in other cases outlined by Rangers but the potential breaches were not considered serious enough to merit more than warnings.

An SFA statement read: ‘We note Rangers’ response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal. In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein.

‘The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that.

‘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 (Rangers) 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.

‘We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency will publish in due course.

‘JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard.'