Articles

It’s Not Just Celtic Minded Pundits Who Are Slamming The Beaton Penalty.

|
Image for It’s Not Just Celtic Minded Pundits Who Are Slamming The Beaton Penalty.

If you look across the city, you will see a familiar thing; their supporters utterly convinced that criticism of the way some of the most blatant decisions go their way is limited to “conspiracy theorist Celtic fans” and other people who they regard as enemies.

But the nature of that decision on Wednesday has so shocked much of Scottish football that it is being debated and discussed far and wide, and even by some outside the game here. For every Chris Sutton pulling it apart there is someone like Steve Conroy, a former official, who says the same.

The decision has its defenders too, of course, but they are few and far between. For every James McFadden, hanging onto his job by making a case for it, there is a Kris Boyd who is no friend of Celtic’s and no enemy of Ibrox, saying that it was a shocker.

Few of course want to dig in deep and look for motives although a few are readily apparent. They would rather put this down to a bad day at the office. Conroy thinks that VAR would have made a difference, and he’s correct because it would have. But whereas he thinks the technology would have made it easier for Beaton to make the right decision I would argue that it would have made it harder for him to make excuses for a blatantly wrong one.

This is where I think the value of the technology lies. If Beaton had watched that three or four times and still made the same call the conversation would be about why Beaton’s interpretation of the rules is so at odds with nearly everyone else’s.

Then people would be looking to motives a little more, instead of trying to argue that black is actually white.

Later on I’m going to do a piece on the number of managers this season who have openly criticised decisions in relation to that club. It’s an odd picture because there are a couple in recent weeks making similar criticisms about decisions against us.

My answer to that hasn’t changed; if people think this is wrong then they should demand changes.

Believe it or, as bad as the Beaton decision was it’s clear that we still haven’t reached a tipping point.

That some are still willing to defend that call and find ways to agree with it proves that. It’s going to take something even more egregious to finally move the needle here, but I think it’s obvious that as this season goes on the desperation of certain people to work towards the goals of a certain club will encourage ever more spectacular decision making.

But that this is a particular shocker is not in dispute except to a very small number of people.

This isn’t just the Sutton’s and Hartson’s saying it, this is nearly unanimous and at the very least that calls John Beaton’s competence into serious question … and the SFA needs to think long and hard before they give this joker another game involving our club or theirs.

Share this article

12 comments

  • Roonsa says:

    You refer to Fanny, sorry Faddy, McFadden. Don’t forget Shelley Kerr. Not only did she say it was a penalty, she made a snide dig at Scott Brown for having the audacity to complain about it. Just coz she’s a woman, don’t mean she gets off – it’s good that we have more female participants in the punditry game. They should be just as open to the same criticism as the dolts who’ve been feeding us nonsense since time immemorial. And she is a shocker.

    • Marky says:

      We need VAR as a 1st step. Just calling refs out for blatant bias has never worked. On another topic as we have only 1 team in the league with a plastic pitch we can vote to refuse teams access to the top flight unless they have a grass pitch. This is the situation in Holland and is a must here NOW as it will pass 11 v 1 atm (livingston)

  • Charlie Kelly says:

    I don’t disagree with anything in this article, but I believe VAR will change nothing as most of officials will be Masons or of rangers persuasion and would agree with referees decision I also think that although we get very few decisions just now,we will get less with VAR more importantly 50/50 ones will certainly go against us

  • Tam c says:

    If the punishment for making shockingly “wrong” decisions is NO PUNISHMENT why get them right.
    If referees gave calls like this latest one against a certain club from govan or for CELTIC WOULD the SFA/SPFL put them forward to UEFA as Scotland’s best referees….NO

  • Eddie cole says:

    100%on the money..been going on for many.many years too… miracle we won anything..

  • Brian says:

    11 games into the season , and 7 teams have been on the wrong end of serious game changing honest mistakes (cheating) .
    Ross county,Motherwell,Dundee,Hibs, Hearts,St mirren and Aberdeen.so far .
    Even more blatant than usual, could this be something to do with £30-40 million for winning spl this season with automatic qualification for group stages.
    I believe this money would be the only thing to stop SEVCO from going bust again (liquidated)
    The sfa and referees know this .
    Question can shareholders sue the people responsible for reduced share dividends if cheating is proven.

  • Jim Burns says:

    Cheatn Beaton must me downgraded to amateur football, simple as.

  • SSMPM says:

    If anybody seriously thinks that Beaton is gonna be sanctioned or downgraded then think again. There’s as much chance of that as there is of the no mark B. Wilson resigning from our board.
    As long as the Thompsons, McFuddys and HunKerr down for the money are involved with the corrupt BBC, Sky, SFA and every other institution’s backing, saying it was the right decision, then nothing will happen. HH

  • JimboH says:

    She’s just a Blue Hunnettte cheerleader. The face of The Rangers Tv Channel.
    What more do you expect from the Scottish Branch Office of the BBC ?
    The High Heid Yin’s there have always been Senior Lodge & O.O. Officials.
    The McKay husband & wife team have both shared the ‘Apron ’ in the top post at Pacific Quay.

  • John S says:

    BBC Scotland’s original reasons for the penalty (highlighting non-existant contact by foot, using a dodgy camera angle) somehow changed when it showed the edited highlights (alleged pull on the jersey which also cannot be seen). It is one thing to have an opinion or make mistakes but quite another to manipulate footage and change commentary to suit an agenda.

  • Andrew Lamb says:

    I think that if the rest of affected teams get together and voice their concerns it just might force the issue with the SFA . At the moment it,s easy for them to say it,s just us being paranoid. The more exposure this get,s the better because this smells like blatant cheating and the champions league money is defo the reason . Simple sums without it the might go under again.

Comments are closed.