Scottish referees need competence, not commentators' idea of "common sense"

Where your writer attempts to use fast food analogies in order to draw lessons relevant to Scottish football.

There has been much talk in Scotland - again - about that old chestnut known as "common sense".

You know the drill.

There is a controversial decision - very often by virtue of nothing other than the fact that it benefits Celtic, either directly or indirectly through its perceived impact on a would-be rival.

(Recently around Cédric Kipré's red card for putting his studs into Scott Brown, to which “common sense” said he should not have been sent off and eventually prevailed with the card being rescinded.)

The pundits are inflamed. They disagree.

What is the rule?

Usually these professional analysts, most of whom have played the game, haven't got a clue. (Why would you expect people who are supposed to be enhancing the knowledge of millions of viewers to spend time learning the rules?)

There is a heated argument, which may be the most entertaining thing that has happened on the show.

How do we resolve this? Let's pour oil on troubled waters by calling for "common sense".

Yes, the pundits and presenters nod, wise words. "Common sense".

Surely, we can all agree on that.

But can we?

Do you ever stop to consider what that really means?

In our personal lives, of course we know.

"Whatever happens, don't disturb me," a relative says. Later they find that their car has gone.

"What happened?"

"The police towed it. I was going to tell you but you said not to disturb you."

"Have you no common sense?"

So far, so easy.

But take another case – your favourite guilty secret fast food joint. It's 10.15 am and you really fancy your favourite breakfast bun that's available until 10 – but they have one on the rack and your server agrees it is only common sense to sell it to you.

Mmmm... You know you want it but do the rules allow it?

"Eh, excuse me," a customer in the next queue says to a staff member, indignantly, "When I asked for that, I was told that your rules stated I couldn't buy it after 10 o'clock."

"I was just doing what I'm paid to do," his server explains.

"I was only using common sense," says your server.

"Or maybe there's something about me that you don't like," says the increasingly-frustrated customer.

"You're paranoid," you and the two staff members retort in unison.

The manager saunters in.

"Look, let's not get silly about this. Both of my staff were doing their jobs honestly and to the best of their ability. I fully support both of them and I think this criticism is unfair on people doing a job that few would envy."

Meanwhile, the other customers have become interested and are taking sides.

"That wee jobsworth is always like that," someone shouts, "He had ten Big Brekkies there last week and wouldn't sell me one of them at two minutes past!"

"Oh, really!" pipes another, "Well Mr Common Sense here did the same to me yesterday. It's only 'common sense' for those and such-as-those with that so-and-so."

By this time, the manager is becoming increasingly defensive, while you are preparing to take your swag away.

"You know, serving you people is a thankless task that I wouldn't wish on anyone."

"Just train them to be consistent!"

"Just hire people with common sense!"

"Aye, common sense when it suits YOUSE!"

As chaos ensues, a crestfallen woman with a clipboard identifies herself as being from the regional quality assurance team.

"I would like to say that I recognise the frustrations expressed here and sincerely regret them.
"While the rule on selling Big Brekkies after 10am may seem pedantic, we ask all our branches to observe it for a number of reasons.

"Firstly, sandwiches still on the rack at 10am show a higher dissatisfaction rate, which is difficult to remedy as our entire production setup moves to lunchtime meals at 10 o’clock.

"Secondly, we believe that our customers deserve a consistent service across all our branches and we find that leaving these seemingly-small decisions to local level can leave customers disappointed over matters that may not be immediately obvious."

"Really?" says the manager, "And who even asked you?"

Forgive the parable – and before going further I should make two points.

Firstly, of course no reasonable person has had more than a small portion of their morning spoiled by disappointment over which fast food they were allowed to buy, so the example is frivolous.

Secondly, there is not a burger joint, pie shop or chippie – never mind chain – in the country that is not run and staffed far better than any of the Scottish football authorities.

At the weekend, common sense – or, more importantly, “commentators’ sense” visited Fir Park where Motherwell (again) hosted The Rangers.

Well were awarded a penalty, much to the indignation of professional controversialist, Chris Sutton, and the world’s wealthiest horticulturist Ally McCoist.

A kick is not a (penalty) kick. Unless it's really hard!

“Never a penalty!” “Soft!” “There’s contact but not enough.” “There is a kick but not hard enough!”

Well, that appeared to be that, despite what you may have seen watching at home.

Two former professionals – one ex-Celtic, one ex-Rangers – made their statements of ecumenical unanimity.

Nick Walsh had got it wrong and Curtis Main cynically took advantage to make it 1-0 to Motherwell.

Then – Oh, the Humanity! – Allan Campbell had the Claret-and-Ambers 2-0 up in 16 minutes.

Well dominated the first half but Sutton and McCoist – neither of whom had ever “been professional” in “drawing fouls” in or around the box, were gagging on the injustice of that wrongful pen.

What happened next was as lamentable as it was predictable.

Eight-million-pound-man James Tavernier took the first opportunity after half-time to theatrically land on his bahoochie and – peep-peep-point! – it’s a penalty.

Again Sutton and McCoist agreed – never a pen! – but Tav didn’t care. Poetic justice!
Two minutes later, Jamie Murphy popped in a peach and it was 2-2.

Honest Tavernier had no intention of going down

Well’s top-six ambitions virtually shattered, The Rangers still looking good for a top-four-or-better finish to the season.

All is apparently right with the world, except for the referee.

Now, I already know what a good five-to-seven of my ten (or more) regular readers are thinking: that referee Walsh was just biased -  he couldn’t wait to even it up.

And you’d be at least half-right.

But, by full-time, something else had happened. McCoist had changed his mind about the first penalty and the rest of the panel, except for Sutton, agreed that Walsh had got it spot-on! (Pun champion since 2006.)

Just another day in the professional backwater that is Scottish football.

However, in homage to that legal great, Tony Petrocelli, let me present you, ladies and gentlemen, with another version of what happened that day.

Petrocelli tells it like it is.

Your eyes did not deceive you when you believed that Russell Martin had kicked Chris Cadden on the calf, missing the ball by some margin of both space and time, thus constituting a penalty.

But what happened at half-time behind closed doors in the referee’s room?

I submit to you that poor Nick Walsh, as officials regularly do, ate the forbidden fruit of half-time roundups put on BT Sport (on this occasion, instead of Sky), either on a TV or personal mobile device, and found that he had been roundly castigated for a crucial decision by two high-profile “expert” commentators from either side of a divide that last existed in 2012.

He was now going to be the subject of much criticism, given the importance of the game for both clubs and, faced with the prospect of a media barrage for days after the game, he allowed human weakness to take over.

I believe that he really couldn't wait to even things up, as the punters often say, but probably not because he was following a tradition of institutional bias.

His first-half performance had been very good.

But he listened to the opinion-formers and buckled, throwing bad decision after good because neither Chris Sutton nor Ally McCoist either know or care about the rules of the game. (After all, in their playing careers, they had someone on the pitch to take care of that.)

In other words, because he made a good decision that pundits didn't understand, he felt compelled to "compensate" by making a bad decision to make amends. 

That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is modern Scottish football. The media influencing decisions on the field and actively making things worse.

McCoist later admitted that he was wrong. Doing likewise doesn’t fit with Sutton’s persona.

But, again and again, in the Scottish game, refereeing decisions are made that defy the international rules, which are intended to offer some semblance of consistency and an even playing field.

That’s how it becomes “common sense” to absolve Kipré of a correct red card (only in Scotland would it not have been a clear red) and Andrew Davies can perform what was definitely a reckless and dangerous "challenge" on Scott Brown - but which looked like a deliberate and malicious assault - and get a single-match ban.

Another accidental attack on Scott Brown

Because, you see, there is really no such thing as common sense.

Well, there is but it exists in each of our minds in different forms according to our wishes and needs at any specific time. And that is the same as inherent bias. 

Rules governing a game are intended to ensure that those inconsistent interests don't offer advantage or disadvantage unfairly.

So that one player isn't protected while another is assaulted; one freed of suspension while another is banned for an identical or lesser offence.

Play isn't - or shouldn't be - stopped for some head injuries but not others. Because, even when a player's health and safety is at stake, he is at the mercy of what that particular referee considers "common sense" - the catch-all excuse for not doing his job.

I have little sympathy for referees and assistant referees in Scotland as their general standard of officiating is appalling.

I also find it both incredible and offensive that Scottish referees are still considered incapable of the corruption that the media are all too happy to believe pervades football in countless overseas countries.

But the atmosphere that is created in Scotland is toxic to any hope of the raising of standards or fair play in general.

The biased and ignorant, through their media influence, too often dictate the implementation of the rules of the game.

We don't need common sense dictated by part-time weekend entertainers. We already have rules. 

We just need the officials to apply them in Scotland properly, without the pundits telling them not to.

Imagine that - Scottish football being governed by the rules and standards that apply to the rest of the world.

Wouldn't that just be common sense?