MOTHERWELL, SCOTLAND - MAY 13: Celtic manager Martin O'Neill arrives ahead of a William Hill Premiership match between Motherwell and Celtic at Fir Park, on May 13, 2026, in Motherwell, Scotland. (Photo by Ross MacDonald/SNS Group via Getty Images)
Tin hat on, but there are no refereeing conspiracies in Scottish football. And this includes for Celtic – and against Celtic.
The only way you can argue this is if you suffer from selective memory and blindness; seeing and remembering every incident that suits your argument, whilst ignoring all others.
This is what psychologists call confirmation bias, when we seek out proof to support our opinion whilst rejecting any facts that are contrary to this.
The past few weeks in Scottish football have clearly evidenced this. And the fact that, if we are being honest, all fans can be guilty of this selectivity.
Did Celtic get lucky against Motherwell last night? Yes, being awarded a very late penalty decision in a game where we had not played well is obviously fortunate.
But was it a penalty? Well, simply, yes. The ball clearly hits his hand when in an elevated and unnatural position. And that equates to a penalty, regardless of whether the time, circumstances or club getting the award suit your agenda.
However, for argument’s sake, let’s say that it wasn’t a penalty.
Let’s examine the entire game.
In the first half, Daizen Maeda is clattered from behind in the box. It was a stonewall penalty and one that would have put Celtic in front at the interval. But it wasn’t given.
It’s a strange conspiracy that ignores blatant penalty decisions to the detriment of the team it benefits.
The eventual penalty award last night has led to something akin to national hysteria. Many commentators who spent years ridiculing the idea of refereeing conspiracies are now fully paid-up members of the tin foil hat club.
Which begs an obvious question: if it was wrong and paranoid in the past to make such claims, when did that change?
One narrative being pushed is that seven beneficial decisions in the past few games have favoured Celtic. And that’s true – if you ignore all the conflicting evidence.
You complain about last night’s handball whilst ignoring the foul on Maeda. You claim other decisions help Celtic but fail to remember that at Easter Road, Celtic were not given a blatant penalty whilst having a handball goal against them in a must-win match.
You can suggest that referees are desperate to stop Hearts, forgetting decisions in recent times such as Hibs finishing with nine men, Hearts’ own late penalty against Motherwell and Celtic finishing with ten men at Tynecastle. And no penalties against the Gorgie men this season.
None of this is to complain about or disagree with these verdicts, but you can only cry conspiracy by ignoring them. Otherwise, surely some of the decisions would not have been given.
To be honest, the same can be said of some Celtic fans. There have been big decisions that have hurt the Celts this season. You can put that down to error, or simply not liking what were often correct decisions.
But to claim there is an anti-Celtic agenda also requires the apparent disappearance of all the contrary evidence.
A good way to visually imagine this is by thinking about the board game Twister. If someone showed you a Twister board and said there were only red dots on it, you would point out that they were clearly wrong and ignoring all the other colours on the sheet.
Refereeing decisions are the same. If you want to claim or prove a conspiracy, you have to examine all evidence, not just the points that suit your agenda.
Otherwise, why would anyone benefit from listening to you?
Many commentators today state, “what is the point of watching football if it’s rigged?” But the only way to argue that is by selecting only certain evidence. If the mainstream media wants to know why people are moving away from it, this is part of the story.
Manufacturing outrage through outlandish – and false – claims gives certain fans the dopamine hit which makes them read or watch.
But that negativity will soon turn against you. Sportscene last night analysed the handball in great depth but ignored the Maeda foul, thus pushing a particular agenda.
Most fans don’t want Celtic to win the league.
That’s not a surprise; most fans are not rabid anti-Celtic people but instead want variety and change so would prefer a non-Glasgow title win. Fair enough.
Based on that, being disappointed that a result did not go the way you want – especially in such late circumstances – is understandable. But it’s honestly so tiring to hear the ongoing cries and screams of the selectively outraged.
Some people say that last night’s decision for Celtic (but not the ones against) will finish them with football. If they are only willing to remember the moments that suit a biased a false argument, maybe that’s just as well.
Choose The CelticBlog as a ‘Preferred Source’ on Google News for quick access to the news you value.
Matthew Marr is a Celtic historian from Glasgow. He is the author of one book and runs the Celtic History Tours. He posts on X at @hailhailhistory
Excellent article Matthew, I totally agree with Your points.
I think most of the “controversial” decisions are down to poor refereeing, poor technology compared to EPL etc., or 50/50 decisions that are almost impossible to call. Some referees also tend to overcompensate when they’ve been known to support a certain club.
However I agree that no referee deliberately sets out to favour one team over another.
I’m not sure about the claims of incompetence, although there is a percentage of dodgy calls.
This hasn’t always been the case but thankfully things have moved forward.
As for conspiracy theories, this can normally be disproved by analysing a whole match, rather than just the moments that go against your own team.
A fine and interesting article Matthew…
However I would certainly say that Renfrew Masonic Bastard Dickinson IS very much out to ‘get’ Celtic…
He proved that at Easter Road a week and a half ago !
I get what you’re saying Clach, but as I said at the time, ridiculous as those decisions were, if he wanted to that much he could have made sure Celtic didn’t win the match.
That’s what I think Matthew means by the conspiracy theories, you need to analyse every decision, not just the ones you disagree with.
I feel that things are improving, as I can remember a time when a referee could decide that Sevco or Rangers before them were going to win the match no matter what decisions they had to make. If that had happened then Celtic wouldn’t have got three points against Hibs. Would you argue with that?
A great article Matthew and very fair.
A superb article Matthew. Hope to read more off your opinions regularly on this site.
Yes and no.
Alan Morrison of the Huddle Breakdown showed conclusively that there were definite patterns of assistance favouring Sevco.
You omit the fact that this is a fluid situation in which the variables are prone to change: introduction of VAR, new head of refereeing, blatant bias for one side being exposed, a referee being demoted for helping that same side.
So as all Celtic fans know and is backed up with concrete facts, historical and recent, there has been an on going bias for rangers/Sevco and against Celtic for decades if not much longer.
It’s all well documented.
And let’s just remember that there is only so much any ref or group of refs (consciously or subconsciously) can do to help their favorite team/ hinder their rivals, before it becomes very blatant to everyone and they lose not only their ability to influence in favor of their team but to earn a nice wee wage from it to.
I think one improvement from VAR is that these “honest” mistakes are made much more transparent, therefore they can’t be as blatant as they were pre-VAR.
I also don’t like when Celtic go down the paranoia route that Sevco have made their own in recent years. In their case it’s hampered their development as pretending it’s only decisions that are costing them trophies is preventing them from addressing the deficiencies of their squad.
I would hate to see Celtic go down that road.
” I would hate to see Celtic go down that road.”
..and ignore blatant and persistent bias against us in the process?
That is what is known as a rigged game.
I suppose there’s an argument for even more prestige from winning in a game rigged against you than winning in a fair one but that is an unacceptable choice. Especially when it wouldn’t be acceptable in any other nation so why here?
Wouldn’t that be complete submission?
Ok we’ll accept your rigged game but we’ll beat you at it all the same. We’ve done that forever but just as the Catholic Irish are now found in many professions they were previously excluded from in Scotland, the train of progress powers on and should not pass the station of Scottish football without stopping for a bit.
This is happening as referees have been under more and intensifying scrutiny in the last years than ever before. So as you point out, they either play fair or find new more creative ways to help their team/hinder their rivals whilst being perceived as fair.
That’s where balancing out of “honest mistakes” comes into play as well as the small things, yellows, time wasting, more fouls against, allowing rough housing of your team but not the other, etcetera.
Until we have refs who are not from the UK we will be stuck with this bias and I mean Celtic specifically because we (Celtic supporters) are not just a Scottish Irish football team, we represent so much that the right-wing British establishment and its many followers throughout the UK hate.
Good article Matthew but most older fans and their older family members can point to distinct moments of bias favouring one particular team and disadvantaging another.
VAR is a useful tool if operated properly !
It has cut down the number of pens awarded to the Govan moaners and that is a positive.
However, until we break the mould of certain officials and their reported allegiance to a certain club, conspiracy theories will always abound ! HH