16 Jul 2026 19:25:51
All the clubs need to get together and get rid of the clowns that run our game the fact you can criticize the sfa or a bad ref decision is a joke
16 Jul 2026 22:21:58
It's a dictatorship.
17 Jul 2026 07:16:14
Absolutely ridiculous level of punishment and a dangerous precedent to set. 4 games for nothing more than an opinion on a decision. Agree or not, there was nothing defamatory, claiming bias, or incompetence in what was said. You can just imagine them rubbing their hands with excitement about how they can charge McInnes now.
17 Jul 2026 08:34:05
You do need to remember that without referees we don't have a game. So, for the SFA to allow open criticism like that from any player or manager is the most dangerous precedent to set. So hammer them with bans and the next one won't be as keen to try to make a point.
I do wonder about McInnes, as his comments were more obviously claiming bias. So I suspect he will be hit more heavily, also being a manager rather than a player, he may be expected to be more cognisant of his words and actions.
I think the fact that later evidence did prove it was a handball as well shows he would have been better to keep his comments for private chats. So not only should he not have said anything, he was wrong in what he claims.
17 Jul 2026 12:00:08
If it had been accusing the ref of bias or anything I'd agree, mate, it crossed a line, but all he said was the decision was a bad one, something 99% of people outside Parkhead agreed with, nothing about the ref.
McInnes may well be in trouble because he did sound biased, but if u get banned for 4 games for giving an opinion on a decision, where has the game gone?
17 Jul 2026 13:54:59
Kaiser, I think 4 games is a bit excessive, but the comment of it being 'the worst VAR decision in history' probably does breach Rule 72, not from bias but by simply implying it was incompetent by saying it that way. By being a player, they sign up to the rules, so need to follow them. So, if they don't want hammered then choose their words carefully. That is why most interviews are fairly boring and non-committal.
I think McInnes will be for it as he was fairly explicit about cheating, if I remember correctly, and he has a long past record of speaking out.
They also will just think that they need to show that players can't get away with comments like that and risk further damaging respect for referees. Without them we don't have a game and no matter what people say about foreign referees there aren't sufficient numbers and the same complaints are happening across Europe at the moment anyway.
17 Jul 2026 14:08:26
4 games is excessive and will mean start of season will be under the cloud of last's end.
SFA could have taken a much more pragmatic approach, and banned for say 1/2, and issued reminder to all going forward, this kind of comment erc will be treated harshly.
PS -
Did Brendan Rodgers not get done under Rule 72 for criticising Beaton and got his 2 match ban reduced to 1???
17 Jul 2026 14:30:42
Get Trump on the case, the ban will disappear.
17 Jul 2026 14:43:44
McInnes will probably rightly get done, but describing a decision, whether or not u agree with him, is completely different from saying someone is incompetent, so it doesn't fit the criteria at all. Even the most respected refs can make huge errors and will be spoken about, but that doesn't mean anyone is calling them incompetent.
I'm all for respect for refs, but the punishment is totally unfair and totally disproportionate. As he's moving, nothing much will happen, but I'd certainly be appealing it, or are we to expect bans after every game someone says the ref made a mistake? It's nonsense.
17 Jul 2026 16:12:33
I agree the punishment is unfair, but wonder if this is the point: he won't be here to suffer the punishment, so it is just for show purposes.
17 Jul 2026 16:12:33
I agree the punishment is unfair, but wonder if this is the point: he won't be here to suffer the punishment, so it is just for show purposes.
17 Jul 2026 16:14:26
Sorry hit send too early. If he was, I think that he would appeal, and it will be reduced to one with one suspended. I think the SFA could ask for the ban to follow him, but suspect they won't.
I think managers and players, in the past, have said the decisions were wrong, and they will continue to be allowed to as long as they do it in the right manner.
It is the way he said it which is being called out. I don't have an issue with that tbh.
17 Jul 2026 16:47:21
I agree that referees need to be protected to a degree, and nobody wants a free-for-all where every decision becomes a public trial. But there's surely a difference between protecting officials and treating any criticism - especially of a decision the KMI panel later said was wrong - as if it's a threat to the entire sport.
A four-game ban for speaking out after a massive, season-defining call feels a bit excessive. If the governing body's own review panel has effectively said, "Actually, that wasn't a penalty," then the player's frustration doesn't look quite as outrageous as it did at the time.
Players are human; apparently only referees are expected to be beyond discussion.
By all means, punish abusive or threatening behaviour, and accusations of corruption or bias should be handled carefully. But "don't criticise a major error publicly or we'll hammer you" is not really protecting referees - it's protecting the system from being questioned.
17 Jul 2026 16:56:09
Sorry, but how is saying a decision is disgusting or the worst decision ever inferring bias or incompetence?
This is the SFA saying no one dare question our refs even when they are poor or give completely incorrect decisions.
How anyone can say that the ball definitely hit his hand to me is also laughable, as I have still to see evidence of this.
This is the powers that be putting their foot down before the new season starts so no one dare question them.
17 Jul 2026 17:47:41
Taking excessive action just to prove a point as the player is leaving is unjustifiable because other cases are ongoing and the results can have a bearing on the decisions made. It's just yet again calls into question those running the game. They are an embarrassment but will be brushed aside as normal.
17 Jul 2026 18:22:32
So saying a decision is the worst ever suggests the referee's officiating capabilities are flawed rather than it being a simple human error which we all make. It implies they lack essential refereeing tools, such as being unable to clearly interpret the rules of the game, or they have allowed outside factors or pressure to influence them. Whilst OF fans will happily agree with that, if it is the case, which I don't, then the game is a goner.
btw the KMI only gave a majority of 2-1, so obviously it is a matter of interpretation.
Look up Sky and they have a later video from head on where you can see it hits his hand, even the side on one shows it can't hit his head without also hitting his hand imo. Then it is a case of saying is his hand by the side of his head a natural position. So, as I say, interpretation and not a bias from the referee.
I love these discussions because the same decisions given for us are always correct. 😉
17 Jul 2026 19:01:29
Sorry, but saying that does nothing of the sort. It is an opinion on a decision. It could be Colina, who was probably the best ref in my opinion, but he could still have made the worst decision ever on one occasion.
As for the decision itself, there are still arguments, so it was never clear and obvious, so VAR was wrong whatever the case.
17 Jul 2026 20:02:39
Angus, it's called having an opinion.
When it comes to this, you clearly agree with the ref and SFA that there was enough evidence in the full 12 seconds they reviewed that it was clearly a penalty.
My point is that saying you think a decision is the worst ever, or it was a disgusting decision, isn't saying the ref is incompetent.
They will come for McInnes hard as well, and I fully expect and hope that we fight it all the way.
The fact the KMI panel was split also shows that people had different opinions on it, so surely that leaves it open to debate, or are the SFA not going to let us do that either?
17 Jul 2026 20:02:53
Also, while I may personally believe there is bias and an element of corruption from outside influences, this isn't about Old Firm conspiracy. It's defence for a Motherwell player who has been wrongly punished.
18 Jul 2026 08:26:58
But the rules of the game say he can't voice that opinion in the way he did. He knows that, but in the heat of the moment said something which is seen to break that law. The fact you agree with his comment doesn't change the point that he did that. Everyone who does that gets cited for it, and then normally punished in some way. The punishment here is harsh, but probably, as I said, firstly to make a point, and secondly as they know he will never have to serve it if he moves.
McInnes made a series of comments, all which could be more easily seen to be claims of bias than this one, so he will be punished as well.
We don't know what VAR were shown, but it isn't the Sky footage that is all we see. There is another head on angle which is also available, which shows clearly it hits his hand, and then you just have an opinion on whether his hand is in a natural position beside his head.
But not trying to change your minds, as that would clearly never happen. Just putting forward what the rules of the game are and why he was cited, etc. I have done that, so won't post on it again.
18 Jul 2026 11:48:49
Thought u said u love these discussions 😜. My point is, while McInnes will probably get done unfortunately, Watt didn't break those rules as there was no accusations of bias or incompetence etc in what he posted, merely an opinion on a decision which everyone should be entitled to.