What SFA should do instead of throwing book at John Brown

The National

14 hours ago

There's nothing better than hearing what are, in essence, mostly fans with microphones, getting all hot and bothered about a refereeing decision that has gone against them, or getting wound up about one of your players who has gotten under their skin.
And if your team wins? Delicious.
A game doesn't even have to involve your team in fact for you to enjoy such schadenfreude at another's expense. Who could forget the mirth the rest of Scottish football had when Rangers TV's Tom 'Commentator' Miller gave us arguably the most famous example of such a meltdown, when he bristled at the celebration of Stenhousemuir forward Sean Higgins at Ibrox 11 years ago?
'Mr Higgins, get a grip of yourself, ya idiot,' Miller said through gritted teeth, his indignation making the shock of Stenny equalising all the funnier for everyone else.
The Scottish FA haven't found some of the more recent output from Rangers TV quite so amusing, though.
(Image: Sammy Turner - SNS Group) It is easy to forget sometimes that these are actually official club outlets, and so are bound by SFA rules and restrictions. Which is why the governing body will argue that they had little option but to cite Rangers legend John Brown for his comments around the infamous Nico Raskin goal that wasn't in the final day draw against Hibs at Easter Road.
Except, one of the reasons why it is easy to forget that these channels are subject to SFA rules is that the SFA very rarely hauls the participants over the coals for what they say in the heat of the moment.
Read more:
The Rangers defence of the bold Bomber isn't so much based on an argument that it is acceptable for anyone on their club channel, never mind a Rangers ambassador, to call Scotland's referees 'corrupt'. I'm sure they will be having a word in his shell-like about that privately, even if they do offer mitigation for his words publicly by highlighting the 'emotional' context within which they were delivered.
Rather, their ire stems from a feeling that they are being singled out for allowing such output on their TV channel when others have escaped censure for what they call 'similar, or stronger, remarks'. And in this, they have a point.
I think most fair-minded fans of any club (or even Rangers fans who may agree with what Brown said) would understand that if you are going to publicly and explicitly label officials as 'corrupt', the SFA might have something to say about it.
Scottish football is a febrile environment, and referees are (I believe, anyway) trying their best. Whatever your view on the standard of officiating, such comments questioning their integrity are over the line, and may even jeopardise their safety.
That being said, you can't punish one and not the others. The injustice Rangers feel is indeed understandable when you consider the selective nature of the charge.
Will the SFA now have an employee watching each individual club's own TV broadcasts of each and every match, combing through the footage to ensure there has been nothing said that could be considered out of turn? Because if there is to be consistency and fairness, that is what they will have to do going forward if this charge sticks.
I have heard my fair share of moans and groans about the referees on these channels, and yes, even insinuations about their backgrounds and allegations of bias, on just about every single one of them.
The SFA may be attempting to make an example of Brown as one of the more high-profile contributors, but their lack of action against anyone else over the years for similar offences just exacerbates a gnawing feeling that has been growing for some time within the Rangers support that the authorities are out to get them.
These fans will point to other high-profile former players, like Tom Boyd on Celtic TV for example, who once said of John Beaton that 'he'll probably be welcomed down his pub tonight again' when commenting on the referee's decision not to award Celtic a penalty against Dunfermline back in 2019.
Back then, the SFA reviewed Boyd's comments and eventually decided not to charge Celtic, who for their part, said they would have been 'astonished' if they were hauled before the SFA and promised to 'respond robustly' if they were.
(Image: SNS Group - Craig Williamson) Let's be clear, both of these guys should know better. But it has been no surprise to see that the Rangers support have been delighted with the similar tack taken by their club, and their refusal to take the charge lying down.
The response issued by a spokesperson was strong, and after CEO Patrick Stewart lost some credit with the Ibrox rank and file for criticising the infamous Graeme Souness tifo at the recent game against Celtic, he along with the new ownership of the club have the fans firmly on side with this one.
And so, we now await the outcome of the hearing tomorrow, where a maximum fine of £100,000 could be applied to Rangers. What the SFA could perhaps do instead is defuse the situation by using this incident to draw a line in the sand, rather than using it to draw battle lines.
At the risk of sucking a little more of the fun out of our lives, they could, for instance, publish specific guidelines making clear from this point on what is and what is not acceptable on club TV channels, rather than dusting off an already existing but rarely utilised rule to hammer one club in such a selective manner.
Then, no one would be able to deny knowing exactly where they stand, and what to expect if their contributors, while still allowing for a certain level of partiality, step out of line.
What Brown said was daft and misguided, but if the SFA are going to go after club TV channels for having daft and misguided content, they will have little time for anything else.
As Rangers pointed out, their energy would be better spent on other matters, like improving refereeing standards, for one.