The only thing Willie Collum “eviscerated” on his latest show was the SFA appeals process.

So, yesterday, the Willie Collum Show came out. And I guess we have to call it something, so we’ll call it that.

One of the subjects he talked about— and one of the topics that has exploded all over the back pages— was his explanation for the reversal of the decision to send off Diomande for the Ibrox club.

Collum was supposed to come on and clarify things. Instead, all he’s done is muddy the waters. All he’s done is create confusion where there didn’t have to be any. All he’s done is create yet another situation where officials are getting flatly contradictory information. Or worse, they’re being encouraged to use their “common sense”. And I’ll get to that in a moment, because that’s important.

The whole show is supposed to bring clarity. It’s supposed to make things more transparent. It’s supposed to explain to the layperson how the rules were followed. But in this case, it was an explanation of why they weren’t followed in the appeal. It seems to me that it was Willie Collum explaining why the referee’s interpretation— totally based on the rulebook— was at odds with the SFA’s expectations.

Maybe it’s just me, but this brings us into really strange and potentially dangerous territory. You see, the rulebook is pretty clear on this.

It doesn’t matter whether or not it would qualify as a blow in a street fight. On a football pitch, it has no place. It is violent conduct.

Yet Collum says referees have to take into account all sorts of extenuating circumstances when deciding what constitutes violent conduct. And that creates the very grey area where so-called “mistakes” are made. But if something is in the rulebook— in black and white— isn’t that the best way to judge these situations?

The referee on the day thought so.

Nick Walsh was quite clear that even though his VAR officials did not believe it met the standard, he was sure that it did. And instead of supporting his referee, who followed the interpretation in the book, Collum suggested these guys just need to be educated better. That they need to learn new things.

But if it’s not in the rulebook, why are they learning it?

Just look at how Collum words his explanation for this:

“For us here, we prefer a yellow card. The referee goes to the monitor. He is entitled to stick to his decision and for him, there is a slap. For us, we would prefer a yellow card for this action.”

If Walsh is entitled to stick to his decision, then how can he, and therefore the decision, be so wrong as to be overturned on appeal?

If Walsh got this wrong, then he’s not entitled to stick to his decision. His decision is a mistake. His decision should be overturned.

But Collum isn’t saying that Walsh was wrong. He uses the word “prefer.” He uses a very specific expression twice. “We would prefer a yellow card.” If this was cut and dried, he would simply say that this decision mandated a yellow card and not a red one. So where does the word “prefer” come into this?

And then he launches into this weird justification for that position:

“What I want to be clear about is that there is a clear action. There is also a clear action from the Dundee United player as well and potentially the best outcome here is a yellow card for either player for the aggressive action of both players, which happens after an initial free-kick is awarded.”

Again, you’ll notice that he fudges this. Maybe the Record reporter who wrote this story missed it— they’re not exactly blessed with language analysis skills— but look at how this is phrased. And it’s phrased very carefully.

Collum is not a stupid man. Collum is a very smart guy.

That’s why this is phrased so precisely:

“Potentially the best outcome here is a yellow card for either player.”

Look at the word potentially.

Where does potentially come into this? This is either right or it’s wrong. And he doesn’t say the correct outcome, he says the best outcome.

It’s vague. It’s deliberately wishy-washy.

Do we really want an explanation for why a referee’s decision was overturned on appeal to hinge on something as vague as that? If he only potentially got the decision wrong, then isn’t he, by virtue of the same language, potentially right as well? And if it’s only the best outcome, then what happened to right outcomes and wrong outcomes?

Are we not supposed to consider those part of the conversation anymore?

This is actually my favourite bit of this.

“For us, this incident doesn’t have excessive force, brutality and the contact is negligible, if any. What I would say, if you go back many years ago, people talked about in the laws of the game, because it was written in the laws of the game, strikes or attempts to strike an opponent and potentially under the laws of the game with that kind of terminology you would see a different outcome, but now the threshold is about excessive force, brutality and negligible contact as well.”

That was so convoluted that I thought I was reading Keith Jackson for a moment. But it’s deliberately convoluted. This isn’t Jackson’s attempt to say something and getting lost in word salad. This is deliberately convoluted so that it loses all meaning. But the meaning is in there if you look for it.

It’s clearly stated that it’s written in the laws of the game.

And “potentially, with that terminology, you would see a different outcome”?

No. With the terminology— which is what’s written down— you would see exactly the outcome we got, which is a red card. Nick Walsh knows that very well. In fact, Nick Walsh is the only person in this whole affair who followed the letter of the law, who applied it exactly as it is written in the rules.

There’s nothing in the rules about brutality or excessive force. And although the rule in question does state that it’s not violent conduct if the contact is negligible, what the hell does negligible even mean? Walsh didn’t agree that it was negligible, as he makes very clear in the VAR transcript itself.

According to the rulebook, Walsh got it right. The SFA statement on the day of the incident, in the aftermath of the game, said this:

“Nick Walsh has taken the view that there was a deliberate swing of the arm towards the face of an opponent, which was not negligible, and therefore constitutes violent conduct.” It’s right there in plain language. “deliberate … not neglibile.” This is why most ex-officials who reviewed the incident after the game, and heard that explanation, believed that the Ibrox club was wasting its time with an appeal.

When you actually look at the VAR transcript— and it’s hard to tell when you’re reading a transcript instead of listening to it— Walsh seems almost incredulous that his VAR officials are telling him it’s not a red card, that it doesn’t “tick the boxes” because it’s not excessive or brutal. It’s in Walsh’s final exchanges that you can read his apparent disbelief at what his VAR officials are saying.

“VAR: Yeah, I’ve got a different angle. So just on here, but the contact for me is negligible. As he’s pushed, the arm comes back, but I don’t see excessive force or brutality.

Walsh: So the swing with the right hand, for you, is not violent conduct?

VAR: Yeah, for me it’s not.

Walsh: Can you zoom in on the swinging action for me?

VAR: That’s the best angle we have got, the angles I have shown you.

Walsh: I see a slap towards the face, so I’m going to put him off.”

It’s right there in the question Walsh asks: “So the swing with the right hand for you is not violent conduct?”

That is the question of someone who is absolutely incredulous at what he’s being told. And it’s clear, of course, that he entirely disagreed with it, because he sticks by his decision and sends the player off.

The whole thing is bizarre. It’s bad public relations as far as I’m concerned. And rather than clearing the situation up, it’s only created a wave of brand-new questions. Collum, you’ll notice, isn’t even saying the decision is wrong. Not in so many words. He’s dancing around it every way he can.

Yet Mark Pirie of the Daily Record shows again what an absolute clown he is by claiming that Collum’s explanation has “eviscerated” Nick Walsh’s “gaffe.”

And I’m amazed that even he can think a statement that doesn’t even come out and clearly state that a mistake has been made— but only that they would have preferred another decision, or that it potentially could have been an error— has eviscerated anything except the credibility of the SFA appeals process.

I am in favour of the reforms Collum has tried to make here. I’ve spoken in favour of them. I’ve written in favour of them.

By and large, I think this is a good system he’s trying to put in place. Although Dundee United would disagree. And I think it has flaws. I think it has holes. I think it has problems. And those problems need to be addressed.

But what we’ve seen here is a clear-cut example of what Dundee United were talking about: contradictory information, media interpretations that are wildly wrong, and officials and VAR at odds because some of them interpret the rules differently.

This is why the rules need to be written in clear, simple language that is easy to understand. And this is why this whole idea of “common sense” shouldn’t be any part of how referees make decisions.

It’s either in the rules or it’s not in the rules.

So Collum should have a think about what the hell he and some people at the SFA were doing entertaining the Ibrox appeal.

Nobody expected them to win it. The SFA statement after the game makes it quite clear that the referee believes the act constituted violent conduct.

It’s pretty basic. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s a red card, and there was no reason to overturn it. And Collum doesn’t even give a solid reason for doing so— except that the SFA thinks it would have been better if a yellow card had been shown. As if that’s how the rules are supposed to work.

So, yeah, there are one or two problems with the system, and I have one or two problems with Collum’s latest attempt to defend the SFA and the appeals process. This is a clear example of what Dundee United said about trial by media, who were all stamping their feet on Ibrox’s behalf, as usual, and referees being thrown to the wolves. And Collum doesn’t even do that.

Nowhere in any of it is there an explicit criticism of Nick Walsh or the decision he made. Just an expression of regret. The media, of course, chooses to view it differently, as if Collum pilloried one of his own officials and took Ibrox’s side. It is high time he and others at Hampden stopped kowtowing to this lot.

We really do live in a weird, weird football universe, don’t we?

Photo by Ross Parker/SNS Group via Getty Images