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Scott Brown, to which “common sense” said he should not have been sent off and eventually prevailed with the card being rescinded.)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?

Brendan Rodgers rightly backs Neil Lennon, who is both right and wrong – Confused? You will be...

For those outside Scottish football, the attacks that Neil Lennon endured have been so unfathomable as to make it pointless to try to explain.

I once tried to illustrate this to an English fan – not just the sectarian abuse that, in my experience, usually leads fans south of the border to mutter about everyone being “as bad as each other” – but about the death threats, the real bombs sent to him, the Hearts eejit who assaulted him, admitted it and still got off the hook, despite having sent a letter of apology.

I say this because I do not believe that Neil brought any of this on himself and I would like to address that before going on to comment on his behaviour at the weekend.

As with any top football manager, Neil is in a high-pressure job in which the competence or otherwise of decision-making – entirely outwith your control – can be the difference between winning trophies or losing your job.

So, it’s difficult to criticise Neil when he is exasperated with the standard of refereeing in Scotland, which would disgrace any professional league or association.

He was incensed at referee Kevin Clancy’s decision to award a penalty against Ryan Porteous and sometimes it’s refreshing to hear a manager call a spade a spade – or, thanks to Google Translate, a Scottish referee an amateur.

When Neil let’s rip, he really doesn’t hold back. Speaking about Clancy and Scottish refereeing in general, he said:

“It's hit Ryan here [on the chest]. The ball is going a mile wide as well. We've seen it again and he can't see it from the angle he's at. This is the same referee who didn't given us a clear handball against Rangers at Easter Road.

“As for me being sent off without really being over-critical of the decision at the time, he's made it personal because I criticised him after the Easter Road game. I am not happy with him at all.

“To send me off, I'm far from happy. And then I can't do my job for the last half hour. Why can't we send referees off when they are so blatantly ruining the game?

“I don't want him refereeing us again this season. But I probably won't get my way on that.

“Huge decisions have gone against us this season. I'm at my wit's end with referees at the minute. You ring John Fleming on a Monday and you get the same ‘Yeah, yeah...’,”

“You go round in circles and I've lost a lot of faith in it, to tell you the truth. That's why I've not really got on the wrong side of the law this season. It's amateur. Mickey Mouse stuff.”

Most of Neil’s comments will find a sympathetic audience with Hibs and Celtic fans. The best that can be said of Scottish refereeing is that it is abysmal. The worst is that it is corrupt and it would take a truly objective – or at least distanced – eye to try to discern between the two.

So, when Brendan Rodgers offers words of support, we can take it that he is not just backing his fellow Ulsterman but is similarly concerned by the standard of officiating.

As Brendan said: “I have seen a lot of strange decisions. The guys are doing the very best they can, but some of it I can totally understand where Neil would come from.

“It was something that is in the heat of the moment. He has obviously seen something clearly and for Neil it has probably been tagged on to one or two other incidents that has cost his team.”

Both Brendan and Neil are right about the decisions (which we are not allowed to attribute to bias in any form, lest we be decried as social media cranks by print and broadcast media cranks).

But, while many Celtic fans are jumping on Brendan’s comments as endorsing Neil’s criticism, the Celtic boss is, as ever far more measured.

Brendan has far too much nous, experience and training to go down the route of claiming bias and he would be unlikely to attach his name to such comments.

He may truly believe that the officials are “doing the best they can” (and most probably are) but making enemies of the same people who Neil chooses to go to war with is neither pragmatic nor Brendan’s style.

Neil Lennon has had few defenders during his time in Scotland and he will surely appreciate the most respected manager in the land extending public sympathy for his frustration with referees.

But that should not be interpreted as supporting everything Neil says.

The previous villain was Stuart Dougal, who did seem extremely ill-disposed towards him, and most Celtic fans took Neil’s side.

Is Clancy a bad referee – oh, yes! Does he have a festering grudge against Neil Lennon – probably not.

But while Celtic and Hibs fans back the warrior from our tribe, something else has been almost lost.

However, badly Kevin Clancy may have refereed, Neil Lennon’s aggression towards him should not be endorsed in any way.

This was not a player on the field reacting to a vicious challenge but a manager of a club with a great history, seething venom into the face of a match official.

Many will have enjoyed that, but this blogger did not.

Some people learn to nurture aggression as a “stay-away” defence. That can be because of internal fears or, for example, traumatic experiences.

But there should be a reasonable expectation that people can go about their professional business without facing physical intimidation.

Neil’s combative qualities largely served him and Celtic well on the football field, where there was never a shortage of hostile opponents more than willing to inflict pain and damage, given a hint of weakness.

But the role of manager requires more measured judgement and controlled behaviour than Neil demonstrated at the weekend.

Make your point, Neil. Fight your corner. Focus a spotlight on issues that demand debate.

But don’t do it nose-to-nose with a man who, however flawed, has never presented physical aggression to you and deserves to do his job in a safe atmosphere.

Otherwise, you will stand accused of trying to intimidate people in a manner that would not be tolerated in any normal working environment.

And you may find that the kind words of sympathisers like Brendan Rodgers become thinner on the ground.

Oh, and another thing – settle in at Hibernian. You will never be Celtic manager again.
--

McVicar, Murphy and the integrity of Walter Smith

He is, according to all who have managed his reputation in the media, a “prince among men”. I refer, of course to the R-word manager, Walter Smith.

A “disciplinarian” who oversaw the most unruly bunch of thugs and boozers in Scottish football during his first stint in Scotland – the flute-players, the car vandals, the kebab shop kids and the terrorist associates who turned out in royal blue in the name of queen and country. It was, as he infamously put it, all part of the “Protestant superiority complex at Ibrox”.

Scarcely has a word of criticism been written of Smith by the “legitimate” media; those whose opportunities to share the fruits of David Murray's wine cellar allegedly add a weight to their opinions that their intellectual fortitude can never hope to support.

Perhaps most notably, Smith has indulged in specific abuse of officials that has yet to draw comment from the “sensible” media, by which we mean the Jacksons and Broadfoots of the world.

Nor has the SFA's “referee's chief” Donald McVicar defended match officials against the aggressive tirades and distasteful innuendo perpetrated by Sir Walter-in-Waiting.

When he specifically named linesman Tom Murphy, recalling a disputed decision in a match his team played with Celtic, the SFA decided there was “no case to answer”.

What was not reported in the established media was that this followed a written apology from Smith to Murphy, without which the authorities could scarcely have failed to take official action. The exact content of the letter can be known only to Smith and Murphy but we might assume that any such letter of atonement contained some form of assurance that further abuse would not be directed at the assistant referee.

And Smith had good reason to be grateful to Murphy. At half-time at in the same game at Celtic Park last season, his then captain (since abandoned) directed such venom at Murphy that an officer from Strathclyde Police offered to intervene. Murphy's response was to request that no action be taken, pleading on Ferguson's behalf that he was “just upset”.

Was this incident reported by the Ibrox in-house tabloid, the Daily Record? Were the paid hacks who masquerade under the title of journalists unaware of the events? We must draw our own conclusions.

Perhaps it is too much to stomach that the manager of the vanguard of Scottish bigotry should have had to cow-tow to a man named Murphy, a man who had already spared his club the shame of yet more police action.

Perhaps, also, it is too much for Smith to be a man of his word and to refrain from intensifying the invective against an official whose errors have been paltry in comparison to, let's say, Mike McCurry.

And in all this there is a gap usually filled by the gargantuan mouth of McVicar. When Iain Brines was perceived to have made errors that disadvantaged Rangers, McVicar condemned the state of refereeing before declining to re-list Brines as on the FIFA list. He was then, on Saturday, given an opportunity to make amends, to “even the score”, which he was quick to take. Might Brines be restored to the FIFA list for 2010?

Murphy's chance is to be offered this week. Assured of 90 minutes of abuse that has been at least tacitly endorsed by Smith, what chance is there of his flagging for a major decision for Celtic as the spittle and sectarian abuse fly?

How many dives will Nacho Novo, Kenny Miller, Kyle Lafferty or Kris Boyd need to make before their first penalty? With the intensive scrutiny and lack of support being offered to Murphy, you can expect that to be within the first three.

Of course, some might expect that Celtic could likewise expect to benefit from refereeing redress in the coming weeks. But, then, the officials are impartial.










--

Iain Brines: I should have cheated

Barry Nicholson: "I heard the whistle blowing before I even chested it down to Zander."

Iain Brines: "From the angle I had adopted, I observed the Aberdeen player Diamond jump to meet the ball and I believed he used his hand to aid the ball's flight beyond him," the referee explained.

"Immediately I blew my whistle awarding a free-kick to Celtic.

"The majority of players reacted to the whistle by stopping - the exception being Diamond who placed the ball into the Celtic goal.

"On reflection and having had the opportunity to view the incident via television, I fully accept that I called this incident completely wrong.

"Having adopted the position I did, it didn't allow me to gain the best view of what happened during the incident. It is clear that the goal should not have been disallowed."

Above is the sort of example that demonstrates exactly what happens when a dubious decision is given in favour of Celtic.

Just to be clear – Barry Nicholson admitted that he had heard the whistle before he played the ball. The referee Iain Brines (who appears to be confused about the players’ involvement) states clearly that the whistle had been blown and most players stopped before the ball was struck.

Yet, despite these facts, an SFA Grade 1 referee responds to media pressure by insisting that the “goal” should nevertheless have been awarded.

In doing so, he completely disregards the rules of football and demonstrates such a poor understanding of his role to suggest that he should never again be allowed to referee a top-level match.

We wonder if SFA Chief Referee Don McVicar will see fit to comment on this, which, given that it was published on the SFA Whistleblower site, suggests that failure to comprehend the rules in order to pander to Celtic’s competitors is not a malaise confined to one referee.

Stats suggest special protection for Rangers

What do they say: there are lies, damned lies and statistics?

Then it’s fairly appropriate to flag up a couple of stats comparing the treatment of our honest-to-goodness rivals and our own club.

Take the disciplinary record, for example. By almost any estimation, the football that Rangers had played this season has been fairly physical but how does it compare with Celtic?

Well, comparing six Champions League matches, Celtic accrued 15 yellow cards and no red cards. Rangers had a very similar experience – 15 yellow and one red.

So on that basis, it might be expected that those figures would be pretty evenly matched in domestic football, you say.

However, the stats say that Celtic players have received 41 yellow cards in 30 SPL games while Rangers have received only 35 (the lowest number in the league) in 29.

But more striking is the disparity in the treatment of teams playing against Celtic and Rangers. 49 yellow and 3 red cards were shown to players in SPL matches against Celtic. For opponents facing Rangers, that figure is 69 bookings and one red card.

So exactly why does it seem to be so easy to get booked when playing against Rangers? It certainly couldn’t be that their team is enjoying special protection, could it?