This Thursday Celtic manager Brendan Rodgers will find himself at the heart of controversy. His candid critique of the officiating during Celtic’s clash at Tynecastle, particularly John Beaton’s VAR performance, has stirred the pot in an already simmering cauldron of discontent surrounding Scottish refereeing standards.
Rodgers’ use of the word “incompetent” has led to a disciplinary hearing set by the Scottish Football Association, a move that, under the current circumstances, borders on the ridiculous.
What makes this situation particularly ironic is the timing. Crawford Allan, the head of Scotland’s referees, has announced his decision to step down, although he will linger in his role until a successor is found. This decision came in the wake of what can only be described as a vote of no confidence by the Premiership clubs, a collective expression of disillusionment with the current state of officiating and the VAR system Allan oversees.
In this context, the prospect of the SFA punishing Brendan Rodgers isn’t just baffling; it’s incredulous. It’s a move that would not only spotlight the SFA’s detachment from the clubs’ and fans’ growing frustrations but also raise questions about the organisations priorities.
Are we to understand that critiquing perceived incompetence, an opinion formed in the heat of competition and supported by a significant portion of the league, is more egregious than the ongoing issues within the refereeing system itself?
Rodgers’ comments, though direct, were far from incendiary. They were the reflections of a manager seeking fairness in competition, voicing concerns that many within Scottish football have whispered in quieter tones. To penalise such comments, especially at a time when the SFA’s refereeing department is under intense scrutiny, would not only be paradoxical but could also deepen the rift between the governing body and the clubs it is meant to serve.
This situation transcends Celtic and Brendan Rodgers; it touches on the very integrity of Scottish football. It’s about the ability of those within the game to express valid concerns without fear of retribution. It’s about the SFA’s response to those concerns — whether it chooses to address the criticisms constructively or opts to silence dissenting voices.
If the SFA proceeds with punitive measures against Rodgers, it risks not just further alienating clubs and fans but also undermining its credibility even further. Such a decision would send a clear message: that maintaining a facade of infallibility is more important than engaging with the substantive issues plaguing the game.
As the head of referees, Allan’s position — both his impending departure and his current “lame duck” status — symbolises the need for renewal and reassessment within Scottish football’s officiating ranks. Rather than punishing those who highlight the system’s flaws, the SFA should seize this opportunity to initiate meaningful reform, to rebuild trust with clubs, players, and supporters alike.
In this moment, the SFA has a choice. It can continue down the path of defensiveness and denial, or it can acknowledge the validity of the criticisms laid at its doorstep and work towards genuine improvement. For the sake of Scottish football’s future, let’s hope it chooses the latter.
