Yesterday, Willie Collum was all over the news, and what he had to say contained both positive and negative elements. To start with the good, I like the idea that he plans to advance his transparency initiatives. We’re going to see some level of openness in the vast system that governs our game; we’ll soon be able to scrutinise VAR decisions weekly, hear audio explanations, and gain insights into some of the more controversial calls.
All of this is positive and very welcome. These are precisely the kind of changes and reforms we’ve been advocating for a long time. It means that officials will have to improve at what they do, and their decision-making will need to be clearer. There’ll be no more clubs banging on about access to audio when it’s freely available on the SFA’s YouTube channel. That’s how it should be, and Collum deserves to be applauded for taking these necessary steps.
But as I mentioned, not everything that came out of Collum’s mouth was sensible or reasonable, or even something I could agree with.
He sat down with a radio station to promote his new policy and answered several questions in a way that I find suspect. The most troubling comment was his assertion that calls for referees to declare their allegiances are an attack on refereeing integrity and should be viewed as some sort of suggestion of dishonesty. Well, let’s examine that.
In the judiciary and other high-profile professions, it’s a legal requirement to declare membership in certain organisations, including Masonic lodges. In the House of Commons, there is a register of members’ interests where MPs are obliged, and legally responsible, for noting down every single outside consultancy they hold, every bit of declared income outside of Parliament, and their memberships of any organisations, including boardroom appointments. Anything, in short, that might present a conflict of interest between their outside activities and their duties in the House.
These are just two examples off the top of my head. Do these requirements call into question the integrity of judges, police officers, MPs, or others? Of course, they don’t. These individuals work for us, and we should know when there is even the slightest chance they are being influenced by external forces. It doesn’t cast doubt on their integrity; rather, it protects it. It ensures that public offices and public services remain transparent and trustworthy.
Football belongs to the fans, and clubs have millions of pounds tied up in the outcomes of major games. We are not a typical football nation; in many ways, we are an outlier, a “banana republic” among football countries, and this is largely because we choose to be. We cling to outdated ideas, and it’s precisely the unique nature of Scottish football that makes it imperative we have strong regulations in place that protect the game’s integrity.
Referees’ integrity is already being questioned. Collum knows this better than most, having faced calls from a club to never officiate one of their games again. The issue exists, and referees are already under the microscope for their perceived allegiances.
The genie is out of the bottle; there’s no putting it back. This is our current reality, and I’ve never understood – nor will I ever understand – what is so complex or controversial about saying we should bring our standards of transparency and accountability up to the same level as everyone else.
If we were calling for something radical, something unique to the game that put us on the fringes and made Scotland sound like its football was run by conspiracy theorists, then this reluctance would be easier to understand. But in fact, all we would be doing by introducing our own register of members’ interests is bringing Scotland into line with FIFA’s international regulations, UEFA’s rules, and those that apply to Champions League games, which prevent officials from participating countries from refereeing sides from their own nations. These are regulations that apply in almost every domestic league across Europe.
None of that could possibly be regarded as “calling integrity into question.” It’s the opposite. If an official from England, say, was allowed to referee a game involving Liverpool then every call he made would be under the microscope. If he awarded a penalty to Liverpool, or red carded an opponent, it would not matter how correct those decisions were; the allegations of bias would be rife. That’s why it is not allowed. It is the absence of these rules which automatically raises the integrity questions.
We are not asking for anything dramatic here.
All we want is for the SFA to raise the standard of scrutiny to match that which is already in place, successfully in place, elsewhere. This would protect the game, its integrity, and also the reputations of officials who would not be allowed to officiate in games involving their favourite clubs. It would be unfair to expect them to do so, just as it is unfair to expect everyone else to tolerate it.
Having such standards in place doesn’t call referees’ integrity into question; it safeguards it.
If we were to implement the same systems as seen everywhere else, this issue would be dead. It would be settled, and it would never again raise its head. So, why are we resisting that? The longer we resist, and the more those in authority – those who have the power to enact these changes – continue to speak out against them on such flimsy grounds, the more we will start to question what that resistance is truly about and who it is designed to protect.
I don’t care whether Collum or others feel insulted by the fact that people keep raising this question. His response is what’s truly insulting. It’s an insult to the intelligence of every supporter in the country. I can’t believe the media lets him get away with that.
And for the life of me, I don’t understand what the media’s problem is with full transparency and full scrutiny in these matters. The argument that this is somehow a retrograde idea doesn’t even hold up to sixty seconds of debate. This is a necessary reform, and the only people who sound backward and ridiculous are those who continue to block it.
As long as the Poundland version of Harrad’s is playing out of ibrox things will never change.
Applying modern expectations for communicating with customers,
and enforcing responsibility with accountability,
must be a real challenge when some mindsets are stuck way back in 1690?
🙁
The next time Collum is in the so called hot seat being grilled the question to him should be,why is Beaton allowed to ref a Celtic v sevco game,give dodgy decisions against Celtic but other decisions favouring sevco,then show up a couple of hours later in a pub that runs a sevco supporters bus from?
And a flag from Sevco fans (possibly even patrons of the said pub – called The Crown for good old Scottish Football Officialdom Messure) with The John Beaton Loyal on it…
They (Sevco fans) are trolling the other 10 SPFL clubs with that but specifically us Hoops supporters…
Most folks would just slink quietly into oblivion after getting the series of decisions that Sevco got from him and their principal challengers were denied from getting from him, but oh no, not Sevco fans they’re that daft they trolled us – or looking at it another way maybe they’re not that daft as they know they can get away with it…
I put that picture on the forum of ma favourite unfashionable English team and their fans simply couldn’t believe it !
At least the transparency is a start, for a part time job, refereeing in Scotland is paid well and more scrutiny and openness will make it a lot harder for people like Beaton,Dallas and Aitken etc to hide behind secrecy and silence without putting their part time jobs at risk. I’ve always thought that Collum was an honest referee, his mistakes were always across the board rather than all directed to the benefit of one team. That was what enraged the Ibrox mob.
It’s a start and we’ll see how it plays out, To me the an even more enemy of fairness of football in Scotland are the media, especially the broadcasting media, with the UK State broadcaster based at Pacific Quay the biggest problem of all. The employment criteria for that organisation, especially in the sports dept is so slanted towards former employees of one Glasgow team, it should embarrass the management big time but it won’t.
At least Collum has opened up more scrutiny of questionable decisions, a role that the Scottish media should do, but don’t. This is because most questionable decisions have traditionally gone the way of their favourite team
Collum has at least taken a step towards some sort of transparency. However, the very first clip analysed in his show left more questions than answers. James Forrest running between two Hibs players, goes down in the box. Collum looks at the footage and judges (correctly) that the upper body between James and Hibs player on his left does not merit a penalty. This contact is analysed from every available answer to justify the decision. At no time does he make reference to the contact which causes James to go to ground. This contact is with the Hibs player on James’ right. The Hibs player’s left leg lands in front of James’ right foot, causing the collision which brings James down. There was no attempt to review that contact, which begs the question. Did the Pro referees miss it at the time? Did they miss it at review? Was the contact significant enough to award a penalty? Collum will have to up his game if he wants people to back him. Look at the footage – It’s on Youtube. You can see for yourself. It is the very first piece of action he analyses.
‘And for the life of me, I don’t understand what the media’s problem is with full
transparency and full scrutiny in these matters’…..
Really James? I never took you for being naive?
Transparency and Scrutiny are the functions that Journalists should be concerned with.
However in the peculiarly Scottish context of Football one particular Club has always been the beneficiary
of the light touch and shallow dive from Scottish Churnalists and SFA Governance.
It’s Cultural thing in Scotland. The Journalist’s in the Broadsheets came from a certain Class in Society who had in common
with others of their ilk, affiliations and membership of certain Societies and Associations. They helped in the preservation of The Scottish Establishment from Transparency and Scrutiny by the plebs and especially the poor Working Class Tim’s.
The current crop of no mark copyn’ paste stenographers on the Daily Raynjurz and others are merely doing what the Paper’s Owners, Managers and Editors are instructing them. More often than not the journos will be willing combatants in this peculiarly Scottish Class War “ Succulent Lamb” is still on the menu. Big up the Tribute Act and ask no relevant questions Boo boo anything Celtic related. It’s what sells their gutter rags to a particular demographic that still has delusions of Superiority and Entitlement enem when their Clubs were and are collapsing under the colossal weight of Self perpetuating Traditions and misunderstood History.
The SMSM collectively is as responsible for the demise of Oldco as Murray Minty and is just going along the same path with the Tribute Act.
They have abrogated their responsibilities to their profession and wider readership in order to prop up a Class structure which is Scotland’s iteration of English exceptionalism based wholly on Religious intolerance and racism.
21st Century Scotland at it’s finest. NOT.
Even if they were asked they would be a helluva anomaly of favourite teams such as Ayr United, Queens Park, Morton, Airdrie United, Patrick Thistle, Hamilton Accies, Dumbarton FC, Falkirk, and Clyde…
Perhaps Cove Rangers for Muir as he’s over that way…
And perhaps even Cambuslang Rangers to troll us seeing as there’s no ‘Rangers’ –
But you can bet your bottom dollar that none would say Celtic or Sevco !
Your probably right, that is what would happen.
If the refs in this country were honest and fair then you can understand that the top of their profession domestically would be reffing the top club in the country’s games and cup finals which are likely to include Celtic. I can understand, just for that reason why Celtic or the tribute act’s supporting referees don’t want this, because they want to be involved in the big games. It’s different in England because there’s so many well supported clubs and more big games.
The fact that we already know most refs allegiances because they can’t hide their biases puts Collum in a position where he has to admit they are cheating huns or act like there’s not a problem (despite the pattern of assistance). Maybe the threat of this will encourage them to try to be more professional but I doubt it.
If the ‘honest mistakes’ / ‘patterns of assistance’ were more closely aligned percentages towards / against Celtic and Sevco it wouldn’t look so bad and might receive less scrutiny from certainly ourselves as it certainly won’t be forthcoming from The Scummy’s of The Scottish Football Media for sure…
But as we all well know, these ‘honest mistakes’ and ‘patterns of assistance’ only favour one club – The club that is as of today 12 years and 46 days old and of course called Sevco !