Handball consistency, not conspiracy, is the issue for our referees
JUST because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t after you. So goes the famous quote from Catch- 22. I don’t know if Joseph Heller was a Celtic fan, but that is a sentiment widely shared by many of them about Scotland’s refereeing fraternity, especially since the introduction of VAR.
It is Scottish referees though who now find themselves in something of a catch- 22 situation, having advocated and lobbied for VAR for years only for it to duly – and starkly – highlight the glaring inconsistencies in their officiating once it was finally granted unto them.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am in no way suggesting any sort of conspiracy against Celtic among referees. There is still a fair old section of the Celtic support who think there is a grand masonic scheme within the SFA to prevent them winning matches. Their ninepoint lead at the top of the Premiership, as well as their 52 league titles, 40 Scottish Cups and 20 League Cups have been won in spite of this.
It’s nonsense, but they aren’t the only ones guilty of such tin- foil hat stuff. Take the Connor Goldson “handball” incident at the weekend. There are plenty of Celtic fans who hold the belief that had the roles been reversed and a Goldson shot had struck the hand of Carl Starfelt in the Celtic area, then John Beaton would have pointed to the spot quicker than the regulars of Bellshill’s staunch watering hole The Crown Bar got the pints in for him after the game.
But it is an argument I’ve heard innumerable times down the years from fans of smaller clubs when dubious decisions have gone against them while playing either side of the Old Firm. I can just about buy the theory that large supports baying for decisions may subconsciously influence a referee’s call, but the colour of the strip or the school they went to?
Say what you will about our referees, and I often do, but questioning their integrity in such a way is both offensive to them and myopic, too. It reeks of seeing things only through the prism of your own team’s fortunes, and disregards the huge number of erroneous calls that have gone against other teams in the league throughout this season and before.
I attended a match this term ( pre- VAR) for example, where a penalty was given against Livingston at Motherwell for an apparent handball against Cristian Montano. Even the home fans behind the goal were laughing at how poor a decision it had been, given it had clearly struck the Livi defender on the hip.
Motherwell scored and won the game 1- 0, a result that could have huge consequences in both clubs’ seasons. In cases such as these though, it is fine to believe it is down to honest human error. Had it gone against Celtic – or Rangers for that matter – though, it must be a sign of something altogether more malevolent at play. The referee must have an allegiance, or a preferred denomination of the Christian faith. It can’t just be a mistake. It’s tiresome.
There is however no doubt that a bit of clarity on how our referees are interpreting the current shambles that constitutes the handball rule would be most welcome.
In terms of the Goldson incident, the widespread incredulity at the time of the decision not to award a spot- kick came because in general terms, penalties have been given this season for similar “offences”. Indeed, just about any time a ball has struck the arm of a defender in their own box, no matter how close the attacker striking the ball was to them, or how much they knew about it.
The IFAB rules were subsequently flagged up to explain away the call: “The referee allows play to continue as the hand/ arm position was the result of the player’s natural ( reflex) movement and did not make the body unnaturally bigger.
“The referee must judge each situation on its merit and the Laws of the Game clearly states that the referee must decide if the hand/ arm position can be justified by the player’s body movement for that particular incident.
“Referees must apply the ‘ spirit’ of the Law and an instinctive reaction to protect the face which does not make the body unnaturally bigger is usually not penalised.”
In short, because the ball would probably have hit Goldson on the coupon had his hand not been in the way, it was fine not to award the penalty. Given the opaqueness of the language used here, though, it is little wonder that referees are all over the place on this.
Officiating in football has always allowed space for the subjective, and always will, but terms like “spirit of the law” and “usually not penalised” leave so much room for interpretation that the inconsistencies we are seeing in the application of the handball rule are the natural consequence.
As a fan of Scottish football first and foremost, it is hardwired into me to fight any feelings of sympathy for referees, but it is also hard not to at least feel a pang of empathy for the position the lawmakers have left them in with their ridiculous tinkering with the handball rule.
It would be helpful if SFA head of referee operations Crawford Allan came out with a clear, public directive on how referees have been instructed to apply it going forward. Fans may not like it, but at least they would know where they stand.
At the moment, its inconsistent application is casting a shadow over the implementation of VAR, fuelling conspiracy theories, angering punters, as well as baffling players and managers alike.
The referees themselves look befuddled by it too. But a lack of consistency doesn’t translate to conspiracy. It doesn’t mean they are out to get you.
Given the opaqueness of the language, it is little wonder referees are all over the place