refs, the laptop loyal and THAT penalty

In this country, a football referee,s vocation is borne out of a keen interest in the game and not the relatively modest remuneration received for his services. So it is reasonable to assume then, that 99% of officials have followed the game from an early age and once had a preference for a particular team; and very likely still hold that allegiance to this day.

While lagging behind Celtic in terms of supporters through the turnstile on a Saturday, it is a fact that Rangers are the most favoured team in Scotland in terms of people who identify themselves as supporters of that club. This, despite what the media would have you believe, is as much for demographic reasons as well as the club's success over the years (witness sectarian abuse of McGeady and Lennon at Rugby Park, Fir Park, Tynecastle etc.) It is reasonable then to assume that the majority of officials may have an allegiance to a specific team and that statistically this team is most likely to be Rangers (Incidentally the same principle applies just as aptly to employees of the media).

Now consider this scenario. You are running the line in an SPL match which happens to involve the team you supported from a young age. Who knows, you may still even have a season ticket for their home games when you are not officiating. The scores in the match are tied several minutes into injury time. The loss of two points would be a severe setback to your favoured team's championship aspirations.

Suddenly the ball is crossed into the box and one of their players goes down faster than Paris Hilton in a hotel bedroom. You're not sure if there was an illegal challenge but a defender was in the vicinity of the attacking player and it looked to you like there might possibly have been contact between the players. If you raise your flag and indicate to the referee that a penalty be awarded, it is almost certain to be given, two points saved and your team preserve their advantage going into the latter stages of the league campaign. The alternative could be a fatal blow to their chances. Would there be a temptation here?

I know I would be tempted if I was in that position. I would imagine the temptation would be all the more severe, when as a follower of Glasgow Rangers, the official can be safe in the knowledge he is going to be backed to the hilt by an apologist media who will immediately dismiss all talk of impropriety and will in fact focus heavily on other events that occurred during the match (e.g. violent behaviour from an aggrieved opponent) to muddy the waters and deflect criticism from the team that is favoured by the vast majority of its viewers/readership.

The softly awarded penalty then goes down as another 'debatable' decision that just so happened to benefit Rangers again. It is also likely that the media will embark on a smear campaign against the favoured team's biggest rivals in an attempt to create the illusion that both the establishment team, and their main rivals, receive parity of treatment from officials and the media.

To illustrate this consider some examples. In the aftermath of the now infamous Hearts/Rangers match, Hugh Keevins said on Radio Clyde, 'We should remember that Celtic were awarded a penalty against Kilmarnock last month and Kilmarnock weren't'. Shug is referring to an incident where Celtic were given a penalty because a Kilmarnock player punched the ball in his own penalty area. Clearly something amiss there.

A few days later Gordon Waddell use his Sunday Mason column to remind us that Celtic were awarded a penalty against Falkirk in 1987 for a handball that he assures us was at least five yards outside the box. Such an avid follower of the Bairns is Gordon.

So there you have it - two soft penalties in 18 years. Us Celtic supporters really do have a cheek to complain about refereeing bias eh?

And this touches on what for me is the most galling thing about the whole sordid affair. It's bad enough when some linesman in an apron gets twitchy with his flag when faced with the arse falling off the good ship Rangers' title challenge (see Cadete, Jorge and Hartson, John x2 ), but you would expect some sort of critical comment from what passes as the media in Scotland. You would expect some motivation to get to the bottom of things would be evident in a democratic society. Is some pertinent questioning and an open-mind to an enquiry into events too much to ask of the press in Scotland? Apparently yes.

The media in Scotland don't do truth, they pander to the establishment. Having missed the game live I tuned into the excruciating Scotsport SPL on the Thursday night. Fraser Wishart, Andy Walker and Archie Mac were getting in on the carpet - sweeping act. Ex-Ranger Wishart expressed the view that 'It was a mistake but I don't understand what all the fuss is about' and the Woofmeister followed that up with, 'It happened, it's time to forget about it and move on'.

It would have been appropriate at this point if someone could've pointed out that the 'fuss' related to the fact that the SPL is now effectively a handicap event with one team having been handed a two point advantage. However this wasn't going to be Walker, who was only interested in toeing the party line, presumably to ingratiate himself further to his STV paymasters rather than make any attempt at encouraging anything reminiscent of debate.

By the Saturday lunchtime on BBC Radio Scotland the flaming torches were out for Hearts chairman George Foulkes after the Tynecastle club made it known that they were seeking an enquiry into the officiating at the match. Assorted hacks and 'pundits' lined up to give the guy a verbal kicking but only really succeeded in tying themselves in knots trying to get their collective brain cell round the word 'integrity'. At one point Gordon Smith actually said that it didn't matter if the penalty decision was right or wrong when questioning the officials' integrity, seemingly oblivious to the fact that if the officials got the decision correct, no debate then arises in the first place!

Although by this stage the ranks of the Laptop Loyal had been closed tighter than a camel's arse in a sandstorm, to a man they had brought themselves to agree that Davis and also Dallas had made an error of judgement at least. Not so Chic Young. Three days later and he had not brought himself to admit that the farcical award of the penalty was in fact a mistake, twice claiming on the radio that the decision was 'contentious' and that the penalty awarded to Rangers may well have been merited. Now the only people who have claimed that the penalty award was in any way even the slightest bit close to being correct are Referee Supervisor Don McVicar, Rangers manager Alex McLeish and the more diehard Rangers supporters. Chic Young is not the Referee Supervisor or the Rangers manager so I suppose that makes his position pretty clear. Let's hear no more pish about St. Mirren from this guy please.

Holding court on this radio program was the odious Daily Ranger hack Jim Traynor who was also the most vehement critic of Hearts' request for an enquiry. Traynor told listeners he was utterly convinced that nothing underhand had gone on and that Hearts should be punished for having the temerity to even hint otherwise (in much the same way he used his column in the Daily Ranger to demand a ban stretching into double figures for Sutton in the wake of his Dunfermline comments and that O'Neill be hauled over the coals for waving to Celtic supporters on the Ibrox pitch). If he is so sure of his opinion one has to wonder then, why Mr. Traynor is so afraid of an enquiry and what it might reveal?

Traynor himself said on the show: 'Are we so naive to believe that referees don't support certain clubs'. Are we then to be so naive that we refuse to believe that these affiliations play no part whatsoever in any decisions made by an referee at any time in any game in Scotland; even when statistics suggest a specific team consistently benefit from the refereeing errors that do occur?

Instead, Traynor would have us believe that in direct contrast to human nature, referees are infallible and beyond corruption. People from all other walks of life, athletes, bank managers, lawyers, tradesman, council officials, clergymen, even Presidents of the USA are susceptible to corruption, but not football referees. In fact not even all football referees are above human nature when it comes to abuse of position. This was proven recently by the referee found guilty of match fixing in Germany.

No it's just our salt of the earth Scottish referees that are of a moral fibre that transcends the base instincts of the rest of the human race. That's what Jim Traynor would have us believe anyway. One can only wonder what kind of Spanish Inquisition Martin O'Neill might have faced under similar circumstances. Probably demands for the cheating player to be fined, sacked, handed a restrospective booking and suspended and then burnt at the stake.

We can console ourselves in the knowledge that pigs will fly before Celtic are awarded a penalty like that, or that the Huns will suffer at the hands of such a decision. Remember Fir Park two years ago? The ball bounces up and strikes Mad Fernando in the upper arm/chest area, referee gives the penalty - aneurysms all round in the press box, outpourings of indignation in the tabloids and campaigns for video evidence to be used to redress these injustices (how many points would that cost Rangers I wonder?).

By contrast, Hearts (and by proxy Celtic) get shafted by of one the most outrageous refereeing blunders in a televised Scottish game and not only is all talk of an investigation to be dismissed out of hand but the press actively campaign for Hearts to be punished by the SFA and tell Celtic fans that we get all the decisions going as part of the 'Old Firm' bias. At least MON spoke up for us on that score.

Let's hope we can get the necessary miles between us and the Orcs to retain the title.

TONY BANANAS