STUART McCall, the Rangers interim manager, last night appealed for the number of offences players can be punished for retrospectively by the SFA to be limited.
McCall welcomed the decision not to suspend Josh Meekings, the Inverness Caledonian Thistle centre half, for the Scottish Cup final next month.
He revealed he cheered when he heard the player, who had handled the ball in the semi-final against Celtic on Sunday, had been cleared to play against Falkirk.
The decision by compliance officer Tony McGlennan to issue a notice of complaint for a hand ball offence for the first time sparked a storm of controversy last week.
McCall stated: "It's 100 per cent the right decision. I'm delighted for Josh, I'm delighted for Inverness. I'm sure nearly 100 per cent of people in football will agree that it was the right decision.
"I can't remember if I heard it on the radio or saw it on Sky Sports but when I heard the news I went 'yes'.
"Listen, everyone knows it was a red card, a sending off. No doubt. But, for me, it shouldn't have gone this far but the right decision has been made."
He added: "I think referees should be allow to referee games. But if someone has elbowed someone or punched someone off the ball, that's different if it's done deliberately.
"I can think of loads of games that I've been involved in that you could have had retrospective disciplinary action. But where do you stop with it?
"For something deliberate, then yes, but this Meekings incident wasn't deliberate.
"Unless it's something sneaky that the referee has missed, an elbow or a spit or something like that. But for something like this I don't think it was needed."
Celtic wrote to the SFA this week seeking clarification on how semi-final referee Steven McLean missed the Meekings hand ball incident.
But McCall stressed he would not have gone down that route if he had been in a similar position.
He said: "What can you do? The referee missed it. We are all human. Obviously it's probably cost them (Celtic) massively.
"But they've (the officials) messed up and you can't go back and change it."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article