Referees, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion

News has broken today that referee John Beaton has been on the receiving end of death threats following his performance in last week’s Glasgow derby at Ibrox. This is a shocking development if true, and the people making those death threats need to be found and prosecuted to the full force of the law. Nothing excuses behaviour like that (again I stress, if true).

It wouldn’t be the first time referees have reported death threats of course and these are always greeted with an outpouring of sympathy for the poor, honest official, his life threatened just for doing his job. It tends to obscure the very real concerns about the performance of his job, as hand-wringing pundits plead with the thuggish element behind the threats to get some perspective, because it is only a game after all, and we wouldn’t have a game at all if it wasn’t for honest, impartial, courageous referees like John Beaton.

What must be borne in mind is that the death threats (if real) and the performance of John Beaton last Saturday are two separate things. Let’s agree there can be no excusing any threats made against him but this story must not be allowed to derail the moves to hold Beaton accountable for his brazen favouring of Rangers* in last week’s match.

Pundits and commentators will now be told to tone down the rhetoric because it will allegedly only feed the alleged bloodlust against Beaton. What this means is, let’s accept Beaton is as honest as the day is long and move on.

But let’s not.

Beaton must still be held to account for the series of bizarre decisions he made in last week’s match, all of which implausibly favoured Rangers*. If anyone is to blame for the death threats (other than the people allegedly making them), I accuse the Rangers Protection Racket that is the Scottish Football Association.

The SFA, amongst many other uniquely bizarre practices, makes no effort to ensure impartiality in refereeing. They are aided in this by the faux-outrage amongst the Scottish football writers’ fraternity at the merest suggestion referees might be at all biased. Honest Mistakes is the name of the game and how dare we question the impartiality of the fine upstanding chaps who go on to make a living on the after-dinner speakers’ circuit telling assorted Rangers Supporters’ clubs, Freemasons and Orangemen about how they damn well made sure Celtic never won a match they refereed.

How dare we question the impartiality of referees who send sectarian emails about the Pope over the SFA computer system.

How dare we question the impartiality of former (and some say current) Rangers season ticket holders as they take charge of a Glasgow derby and make a series of bizarre decisions that somehow always favour Rangers*.

It is at least possible that these guys are capable of being impartial, but is it likely? I know if I was refereeing the match last weekend there would have been a very different outcome, no matter how poorly Celtic performed on the day. Rangers* would have been down to 10 men after 5 minutes, but the difference would be, no one would be able to see they didn’t deserve to be, because Morelos kicked Scott Brown in the balls.

The situation was reversed though. Morelos kicked Scott Brown in the balls and a Rangers*-supporting referee decided against even awarding a freekick to Celtic. That cannot be right.

There’s a story from Roman history of Julius Caesar and his wife Pompeia.

As well as being at different times a Consul of Rome and eventually dictator, quite early in his career Caesar was chosen to the lifetime position of Pontifex Maximus, or “Supreme Bridge Builder.” This was the High Priest of the Roman state religion.

In her position as wife of the Pontifex Maximus, in 62BC Pompeia hosted the festival of Bona Dea, or “the Good Goddess,” which was held in the official residence of the Pontifex Maximus on the Via Sacra in Rome. It was a female-only event, but a young Patrician, Publius Clodius Pulcher, disguised himself as a woman and gained entrance, supposedly to seduce Pompeia.

Publius was discovered and fled without ever coming face-to-face with Pompeia, but was caught and put on trial for the sacrilege of tricking his way into a female-only religious celebration.

Caesar gave no evidence against Publius at his trial and he was acquitted of the charge, but in the aftermath, Caesar divorced his wife. When asked why, he responded that, “My wife ought not to be even under suspicion.”

This has given rise to the proverb, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” There was no proof that Pompeia had ever had any improper relations with Publius. There was no proof she even wanted Publius to be in the building. But for Caesar, that was not good enough. The very fact that there was a whiff of suspicion surrounding Pompeia was enough for him to divorce her. His dignity demanded no less.

Referees are, or should be, in a similar position to Pompeia. They quite simply must be above suspicion.

The FA in England take this view. Referees need to declare which team they support and they are never allowed to referee games affecting those teams. By doing this, the FA are not saying they don’t trust those referees to be impartial, they are protecting the integrity of the game by placing referees above suspicion.

Referees still make mistakes, but in England at least, we can accept that these are honest. I was at the Manchester City v Crystal Palace match a couple of weeks ago and at one point in the first half a Palace defender headed the ball past his own goal and the referee awarded a goal kick, to howls of outrage from the City fans.

A few minutes later, he awarded City a corner kick, to be met with ironic cheers by the City fans. From the corner, the ball was again headed out by a Palace defender and more ironic cheers greeted the corner award. This time, the referee theatrically took a bow to the City fans. Laughter greeted this and the incorrect goal kick award was forgotten about. The bow came across as an acknowledgement from the referee that he’d made a mistake and the fans accepted it.

It’s inconceivable to me that a similar thing could happen in Scotland; certainly not in a match involving Rangers*.

The SFA insist on appointing referees to Celtic and Rangers* matches who have more than a whiff of suspicion about them. They must take a share of the responsibility when fans perceive referees’ decisions to be blatantly, and game-changingly in favour of the team they support.

The usual objection to bringing in the rule that referees must declare which team they support is that it wouldn’t be possible to have referees who don’t support either Celtic or Rangers* in Scotland.

That to me, in this day and age, is no objection at all. It would be the easiest thing in the world to bring referees up from England or Wales for the day. They could fly in from London, Cardiff, Birmingham or Manchester in less than an hour, and be back home before tea-time.

The reason the SFA won’t do it is that it would be an admission of their own long-term failure to ensure that not only are match officials in Scotland impartial, they can also be seen to be impartial.

Referees must be above suspicion and referees in Scotland are most certainly not above suspicion. The blame for that lies squarely with the Scottish Football Association.

The SFA on Trial

Football in Scotland is descending into farce once again and once again, the need to protect and promote Rangers* is at the heart of it. This time though, it is ever more serious. Over the past six years the administrative side of the game was affected. Now it is affecting the Laws of the Game (as applied in Scotland) itself.

In one sense, the decision of the Compliance Officer yesterday was perfectly reasonable. The rules state that if the referee saw an incident, then the Compliance Officer cannot intervene. On this occasion, the party at fault is referee John Beaton and he must be dealt with, but the situation is the culmination of a series of events in which the SFA is squarely at fault.

Beaton’s handling of last week’s Glasgow derby was by any standards a disgrace. We have to state the usual caveats of course, that Rangers* deserved to win etc, but that is missing the point. Rangers* were the better side and much of that was down to their performance and approach to the game, but equally there is no doubt Beaton’s handling of the match contributed to Rangers’* ability to dominate the match.

Every time Beaton allowed fouls by Rangers* to go unpunished, he helped keep them on the front foot. Every time he stopped play to award a freekick to Rangers* he relieved the pressure from them and allowed them to build an attack. Each time he allowed Morelos to assault a Celtic player, he saved Rangers* from having to play with 10 men (some might say 13).

Let’s take just one example – the build up to Morelos’ stamp on Anthony Ralston.

Just before the stamp, Ryan Christie was fouled on the touchline, about 10-15 yards inside Celtic’s half. He was challenged from behind and had his legs taken from under him. A clear foul.  A freekick to Celtic at that point would have resulted in Rangers* retreating into their own half, with Celtic having the opportunity to move forward. Instead, Beaton allowed Rangers* to play the ball down their left wing, putting Anthony Ralston under pressure as he ran to take possession, with Morelos chasing after him.

At this point, Morelos barged Ralston from behind, knocking him to the ground as he played the ball out. A freekick to Celtic at this point would have resulted in Rangers* retreating to the halfway line, giving Celtic the opportunity to build from the back or launch the ball long into Rangers*’ half. Instead, Beaton ignored the foul and awarded Rangers* a throw in in the final third, putting Celtic under pressure and giving Rangers* possession in a dangerous position.

As Ralston fell, Morelos then tried to catch him with his foot a couple of times before jumping over him and stamping on his back as he did so. A deserved red card for Rangers* would have left them a man short, instead Morelos was allowed to stay on the pitch.

Many people have said Celtic just have to be better than them so that Beaton’s decisions don’t matter – an absolute nonsense.

Saying this means you don’t think Celtic deserve a level playing field. It’s okay for Celtic to be handicapped by poor/biased officiating. You’re collaborating with your own oppression.

Whether Rangers* were the better team or not is immaterial. It doesn’t mean it’s okay for the referee to favour them and it doesn’t mean Celtic don’t have a legitimate grievance.

Secondly, how is any team supposed to overcome refereeing like Beaton’s? When the other side can literally boot you in the balls with impunity, what chance have you got? You can be kicked, stamped, ball-grabbed, shirt-pulled, barged etc and the referee will wave play on. What on Earth are you supposed to do to overcome that?

Beaton’s antics absolutely did have a bearing on the result of the game. He ensured that Rangers* were constantly on the front foot and Celtic constantly under pressure and on the defensive. Yes Rangers* wanted it more and yes Rangers* played very well, but Celtic were never going to be allowed to compete on a level playing field and that absolutely did contribute to the result.

By telling the Compliance Officer that he saw all three Morelos incidents cited, and that he decided no action was required, Beaton has saved Rangers* from the consequences of Morelos’ actions yet again. Serious questions must be asked of John Beaton because any sane observer can see that all three incidents deserved a red card and if John Beaton could not see that, he has no business being on a football pitch.

The SFA must be made to make some kind of statement about this. Beaton is clearly not fit to referee at any level if he did not see the need to take any action. The question now is, what do the SFA think of that?

If the SFA disagree with Beaton’s decisions (which shouldn’t even be in doubt) then they must take steps to remove him from the Grade One list. To decide one of those incidents, in the heat of the moment, was not worthy of action, is at least plausible. To decide all three in the same match were not worthy of action is at best sheer incompetence.

But I would go further than that. *No one* is that incompetent. Taking his overall handling of the match together with deciding three blatant instances of violent conduct required no action, leaves you with only one conclusion – John Beaton is a cheat. John Beaton corrupted the match and did everything in his power to ensure a Rangers* win.

If the SFA cares anything for the game of football in Scotland, they will never allow John Beaton to referee another match. There’s no need for them even to open the can of worms that would result from calling out his cheating. There’s more than enough evidence to show Beaton is absolutely incompetent to referee in the SPFL and we can move on from there.

By doing this, the SFA can send out the message that incompetent refereeing will not be accepted. Referees will know they cannot favour one team and get away with it. Failure to deal with Beaton will be yet more proof that the SFA themselves are not fit to govern football in Scotland.

The SFA has presided over the descent of the game of football in Scotland into a violent farce. Morelos was sent off at Aberdeen in the first game of the season and the Compliance Officer on this occasion overturned the red card on the grounds that his kick on an Aberdeen player was “petulant” rather than “violent,” and that it did not constitute the “excessive force,” or “brutality,” necessary to warrant a red card.

Football in Scotland is now played to a different set of rules to the rest of the world. Morelos’ red card was overturned. Allan McGregor escaped censure for kicking Kristoffer Ajer even after a panel of former referees looked at it. John Beaton may be the immediate cause of the latest farce, but this is the result of previous decisions taken by the SFA and it should be the SFA themselves who are now on trial.

They corrupted the game in Scotland to achieve a Rangers-branded club in the SFL in 2012 after apocalyptic warnings of what would happen if this was not allowed.

They devised the infamous Five Way Agreement, including the previously unheard of “conditional membership,” to facilitate Rangers* participation in the Ramsdens Cup. They devised the previously unheard of transfer of membership to enable Rangers* to participate in the old Third Division.

They arranged for the LNS Commission to investigate Rangers for the use of EBT’s and the fielding of ineligible players for over a decade from 1998 – 2011, then subverted that process by cutting out the period from 1998-2001 and via one of their own officials (Sandy Bryson) concocted the previously unheard of “imperfectly registered but eligible,” to avoid stripping titles and trophies from Rangers’ historical record.

They imposed a registration ban on Rangers* but stood by as they subverted that by signing free-agents in the transfer window to register after it was closed, thereby ensuring the registration ban was meaningless.

The SFA has a long history of finding loopholes to help promote and protect Rangers* and the history of the past six years alone shows that the SFA cannot be trusted to treat Rangers* the same as they do every other club. When they are prepared to break their own rules just to have a Rangers* in the game, how can they possibly be perceived as acting in good faith if they allow referees to ignore Rangers* players kicking and stamping on opponents?

John Beaton has stuck two fingers up at the fans of every football club in Scotland other than Rangers*. Now the SFA must decide where they stand. Will they join Beaton in sticking up two fingers at every football fan in Scotland, or will they do the right thing – deal with Beaton and ensure that football in Scotland is played to the same rules as every other country in the world, where kicking an opponent in the balls is violent conduct and deserving of a red card?

Beaton On the Square

As I suspected would be the case, Alfredo Morelos is to face no action over three flashpoints in the recent Glasgow derby at Ibrox. I was right about that, but I was wrong about the grounds for no action to be taken.

My forecast was the “Aye, but…” defence would be used to avoid any action being taken against Morelos, but it turns out to be far more brazen than that. The Compliance Officer, Clare Whyte, has investigated the three incidents, but was informed by referee John Beaton that he saw all three, and deemed them unworthy of action. Therefore, according to the rules, there is no case to answer.


Let’s just pauses to consider these incidents for a moment. Incidents John Beaton by his own admission, saw and deemed unworthy of action.


The first saw Celtic’s Scott Brown jump to head the ball. Morelos, just behind him, kicked the Celtic captain up his backside while he was in mid-air.


In the second incident, Morelos barged Anthony Ralston, again from behind, as he took possession of a ball played down Rangers’* left wing. The barge resulted in Ralston falling to the ground and Morelos followed up by standing on his back, not once, but twice. Beaton awarded Rangers* a throw in.

The third incident saw Morelos on the ground, with play stopped, and he hit Ryan Christie between the legs. One photo actually shows him grabbing at Christie’s privates.

This begs the question, what does a player actually have to do before John Beaton deems his actions worthy of action?

Serious questions must now be asked of John Beaton’s suitability to be a Grade One referee if he thinks kicking, stamping, and groin grabbing do not constitute violent conduct and a straight red card. But this is kind to Beaton. It assumes he is simply incompetent.

No one is *that* incompetent. An incompetent referee might miss one obvious red card offence. To miss two stretches credibility. To miss three? There is only one conclusion to be drawn.

John Beaton is a cheat. An examination of his performance last weekend will show that every 50-50 decision went Rangers’* way. Any time opposing players came together in the middle of the park his decisions were consistent. If the ball ran kindly for Rangers*, play was allowed to continue. If the ball ran kindly for Celtic, it was a freekick to Rangers*. I will withdraw this statement if anyone can show me a single incident from the 90 minutes when a decision *might* have gone either way and went Celtic’s way.

We all knew this at the time, but with today’s admission that he saw all three incidents involving  Morelos and cited by the Compliance Officer, John Beaton is sticking up two fingers at every non-Rangers* fan in Scotland.

He is telling us he knew Morelos should have been red-carded, but he decided not to and he is now challenging us, “What you going to do about it?”

John Beaton knows Morelos should have been sent off on three separate occasions. John Beaton knows we know Morelos should have been sent off on three separate occasions. And John Beaton knows he will get away with it.

There are two options here. John Beaton is either incompetent or he is a cheat. Either way, Celtic must pursue this to the ends of the Earth. The first thing they should do is demand that the referee’s supervisor’s report from Saturday is made public.

John Beaton says he saw these incidents and no action was required. That’s an astonishing admission, one he feels comfortable making because he obviously thinks there will be no ramifications for him from it. What I want to know is, how do the SFA rate that performance? Did the referee supervisor observing his performance agree with his decisions? How was he rated?

If Beaton’s handling of the match was rated as even satisfactory, then we are in a whole world of trouble in this country. If his handling of the match was rated as less than satisfactory, then then by missing THREE obvious red card incidents he has made such an almighty mess of it that he should never be allowed to referee a Premiership match again.

Two options, Celtic. He is either a cheat or incompetent. I know which I think it is.

Rangers* and the Aye But Defence

With the SFA compliance officer looking at *three* separate incidents involving Alfredo Morelos in the recent match v Celtic, it brings into sharp focus the chaotic governance of football in Scotland when it comes to teams playing out of Ibrox.

On too many occasions in the past apparently open and shut cases involving Ibrox clubs have been found to have previously unheard of complexities resulting in a Rangers branded club escaping punishment. I call this the, “Sed, etiam,” defence, or in the vernacular, “Aye, but…” Whenever Rangers* are found to be in contravention of the rules, there’s always a “but,” that exonerates them from any punishment.

Maybe the best known example is the case of Rangers players in receipt of EBT payments being incorrectly registered from 1998-2011. For over a decade, an increasing number of players at Ibrox were incorrectly registered due to their contracts not containing details of all payments being made to them as renumeration for their services.  

While previously clubs who had fielded even one incorrectly registered player forfeited the match, even if it was a simple administrative error such as not dating the form properly, or a signature missing or in the wrong place, the SFA in the form of Sandy Bryson pulled a rabbit out the hat for Rangers, declaring that, “Aye, the players were incorrectly registered, but they were eligible.”

This sleight of hand involved the dreaming up of a previously unheard of formula, that the players were “imperfectly registered, but eligible,” on the grounds that because no one noticed at the time (and how could they? The details of their full renumeration packages were deliberately concealed by Rangers), they were therefore eligible to play until such times as the mistake was noticed.

The SFA has allowed a similar situation to develop in Scotland this season over the new wording of the latest revision to the laws of the game for season 2018/19, specifically Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct.

Earlier this season, Alfredo Morelos was red carded in a match v Aberdeen at Pittodrie for kicking an Aberdeen player. It seemed fairly straightforward at the time – if you strike an opponent with hand, head or foot while not challenging for the ball, that’s a straight red card. 

Except in this case it wasn’t. Rangers appealed the card and incredibly the appeal was upheld on the grounds that…”the video footage clearly showed that the force of the kick by the player towards an opponent was not excessive and did not use brutality.”

The wording comes straight from Law 12, which defines “violent conduct,” as, “…when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.”

The implication of the ruling on the Morelos red card appeal is that, in Scotland at least, punching, slapping, headbutting or kicking an opponent is not a red card offence in and of itself. A degree of judgement has to be exercised by the referee as to whether or not it has been done with sufficient “force” or “brutality” to merit a red card.

When the Compliance Officer reviews the Morelos incidents then, she will not be looking to determine whether Morelos kicked Scott Brown or not, but whether he kicked him with sufficient force or brutality. Here’s what the Appeals Tribunal said about Morelos’ kick on the Aberdeen player back in August:

“Though there was contact, it was limited confirming a more petulant reaction than violent conduct... The tribunal was also mindful of the recent guidance provided that sought to differentiate between petulance and violent conduct. The tribunal was of the view that in the circumstances this was the former rather than the latter.”

Bearing all this in mind, when the Compliance Officer reviews the Morelos incidents, there is no certainty he will be offered a ban for any of them. If we are looking at the standard of evidence required nowadays for an SPFL player to be cited for violent conduct by the Compliance Officer, look no further than the case of Allan McGregor and his kick out at Kristoffer Ajer at Celtic Park.

In this instance, it proved impossible for the three former referees reviewing the incident to reach a unanimous decision. It was not in doubt that McGregor lashed out at Ajer, but those weasel words, “excessive force or brutality” saved him from a ban.

On that basis, and going out on a limb here, if I was a betting man (I’m not), my money would be on Morelos escaping any ban arising from his antics against Celtic.

There doesn’t seem to be any doubt over the new rules in England. I have not been able to find a lot of incidents online but I’m sure there are more and maybe someone will even be able to show an instance where a player in the Premier League has similarly been able to successfully appeal a red card over the interpretation of “excessive force or brutality.” But here’s a red card for Marcus Rashford for a headbutt on Phil Bardsley from earlier this season.

Rashford and Bardsley clash on the byline. There’s a coming together and Rashford puts his head in Bardsley’s face, who then reacts as though he has been headbutted. 

Is this a red card? All day long. No doubt about it whatsoever. But did Rashford use “excessive force or brutality?” All depends on how you define it I’d say. Is there an acceptable amount of force or brutality a player can employ in headbutting, kicking or punching an opponent? Or is the fact of doing it at all the use of excessive force or brutality?

Why is it only in Scotland this seems to be an issue at all? When the Compliance Officer's decision is made public, bear in mind the "Aye, but..." defence.