An interesting debate, the not proven verdict I think serves its purpose in our judicial system to a degree. But will contradict myself and say, if your referring to the Boyd not proven verdict, then it's a cop out by the SFA. An easy way out to not ruffle the feathers of the blue side of Glasgow.

It's also interesting to note that after video evidence of Rangers fans on social media fighting with the police at the Livingston game last week that there has been hardly no mention of this in the mainstream media. In fact it seems there has been a mass deflection of this by going after and sensationalising the Livingston programme editor for taking a few light hearted jibs at Rangers, now the editor has had to hand in his notice. But that's for a different topic I suppose... Just makes you shake your head in disbelief at times.

Yes Ciftci was 'not proven' for the linesman incident as well. 

In court when two professionals of the law are against each other trying to prove or disprove a case then I think not proven has a place as there needs to be evidence of the crime having taken place etc.

As for its use in the SFA, we have clowns using the verdict for an easy way out. Cifcti included, as United said in the media that they would take it all the way if proven guilty.