The Hatate review panel “verdict” should not surprise a single Celtic fan.

So, the SFA panel that reviews past decisions thought Reo Hatate should have been sent off against Kilmarnock. Who is genuinely surprised at that? It came down to a majority verdict, of course, but was anyone honestly shocked by the result?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about another supposedly open-and-shut decision—the Maeda penalty claim—that was deemed a wrong call by a 4-to-1 majority. Incredibly, one person on the panel thought the on-field decision and the VAR review were correct. There probably weren’t five people in the entire country who believed that wasn’t a penalty. Somehow, one of those rare individuals ended up on the SFA’s little review panel.

Because I found that so suspicious, I looked into the makeup of the SFA review panel, and it can’t be trusted. It’s blatantly susceptible to bias. It includes ex-managers, ex-coaches, ex-players, and media figures. For all we know, it’s the BBC Sport Scotland panel sitting in judgment of these decisions, and we all know how that looks.

I don’t trust these people to get decisions right. I don’t trust their objectivity, and I certainly don’t believe they’re unbiased. Once again, this came down to a 3-to-2 majority decision. Some weeks, you’ll get honest pros who genuinely want the correct outcome. Other weeks, it’ll look like the US Supreme Court—stacked with people pushing an agenda.

This week, a scandal erupted in English refereeing. It’s far from the first. Across Europe, almost every country has had its own controversies. We’ve had ours, but nobody likes to talk about them.

We had the “Dougie Dougie” scandal, for example. Then there was the referee strike, which they tried to blame on Celtic. During that period, we learned that the head of referees had been sending sectarian, anti-Catholic emails to colleagues. He was forced to quit, but the damage to the system’s credibility was done.

In the span of just a few months, the idea that our officials were above suspicion, beyond reproach, and paragons of integrity completely collapsed. There should have been a full-scale investigation and major reforms to acknowledge that. Yet here we are, still waiting.

Even now, questioning the integrity of officials is a surefire way to get yourself chopped off a radio show, a podcast, or any other platform run by the mainstream press. It’s not something we’re encouraged to discuss. In fact, we’re not permitted to. We’re just supposed to believe these officials are unimpeachable paragons of virtue—ultra-honest, superhuman beings.

And every single one of us knows that’s utter nonsense.

In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Mark Antony repeatedly says, “Brutus is an honourable man.” The line is soaked in sarcasm, designed to whip up the crowd’s fury against the so-called “Liberators” who killed Caesar. It’s a masterpiece of spite and demagoguery.

The curious thing is that according to all the other characters in the play, Brutus was an honourable man—at least according to their point of view. He killed Caesar, someone who had shown him kindness and loyalty, because he believed it was the right thing to do. Honourable or not, everything depends on your perspective.

Likewise, we’re constantly told that our referees are beyond reproach. But as the scandal in England demonstrates, they’re human beings like the rest of us. They have biases and weaknesses. Acknowledging that isn’t a slur against their characters; it’s a basic acceptance of human nature and any sane environment would protect against it to safeguard the game.

Instead, our national game continues as though this is normal. A country with no proper standards. With no real accountability, as I’ve already discussed in another piece today.

And yet, in this respect we’re supposed to believe that Scotland is exceptional. That warped exceptionalism is the hardest thing to stomach. The idea that our officials could be biased is treated as absurd in a country where two clubs dominate the media narrative, and where so many people have strong opinions on one or both of those teams. Suggesting some refs might not be impartial when the chips are down is treated as heresy.

That infantilizes us all. It makes mugs out of us, because we know better.

Of course, three of the five on the panel thought Hatate should have been sent off. Predictably, there’s been no comment on how Celtic players were targeted with thrown elbows. That wasn’t deemed worthy of scrutiny.

Certainly, the media didn’t dwell on it. We talked about it amongst ourselves, which was fortunate because nobody else wanted to. That’s part of the problem, too.

I don’t trust the people on that panel. I don’t trust their processes or their systems.

I won’t use the word “integrity” when it comes to them because I don’t believe they have any. Nor do I believe the association has any. Without knowing the names or faces on that panel, I can tell you this for certain: some weeks, every decision they make will be viewed through the lens of some agenda or other, some bias or another. The people running this game and those who are supposed to cover it have practically guaranteed it.