Hearts' rash shot across officials' bows threatens to backfire

MOIRA GORDON

EARLY this week, a letter will drop through Hearts’ letterbox, saying something along the lines of "aye, right". Following their ludicrous move to lobby the SFA for an inquiry into the "integrity of the decision which led to the chaotic ending to Wednesday night’s fixture with Rangers at Tynecastle", the association have made it clear that they have not been presented with any evidence which "would suggest the match was not played in accordance with the laws of the game".

In fact, all Hearts do seem to have are a list of spurious rumours and a switchboard jammed by peeved punters. And, it has emerged, they also have a few questions of their own to answer. Why, for example, has Hearts manager John Robertson been claiming assistant referee Andy Davis refused to speak to him, when refereeing insiders steadfastly claim Davis did explain his decision?

And why does Robertson’s account of the explanation given by Davis differ so significantly from the one heard by those who witnessed the conversation between the two men?

Those close to Davis insist he never said two hands had been used by Lee Miller in the foul on Sotirios Kyrgiakos, a statement which seems to be one of the key causes for contention. Addressing the media on Friday, non-executive director Chris Robinson said that Hearts accepted that mistakes could be made throughout a game but felt that on this occasion "the reasons don’t match and marry".

They also claimed that additional information, other than the video evidence, had come to their attention. But they refused to give further details, leading to the belief that the best they can conjure up are the rumours which have been rife as paranoid Gorgie fans cook up one conspiracy theory after another.

One suggestion is that the man at the centre of the row is a Rangers season-ticket holder and therefore biased. A senior refereeing insider who does not wished to be named, has "categorically" refuted the claim.

"Referees, like everyone else, start off as young boys who live in a certain area and support a certain team, regardless what area or what team that is," said the source. "Then, in time, they make their way up the ranks, starting in public parks, where what team they supported as a boy is considered irrelevant. By that stage it doesn’t matter what team you watched as a boy because now you are working every Saturday and can’t see them anyway. You may still have a soft spot for them but that is different from having an allegiance.

"Once a referee pulls on that jersey, especially at the highest level, there is no way they show any bias; it’s just 22 players and one ball."

However, the fact that the same official was involved when Rangers beat Celtic 1-0 five years ago after he disallowed a "goal" by Mark Viduka has fanned the flames.

His case was not aided when it emerged yesterday that the policeman, who is based in Govan, received a mock commendation from his police colleagues, reading: "The Chief Constable Highly Commends Constable Andrew Davis Reg No. 290368. Whilst off duty and in uniform, for showing presence of mind in extreme circumstances whereby he got it right up the Celtic by disallowing Big Viduka when he tried it on with that ‘Arm of God’ stuff, thereby endangering his double-glazing and his life."

It concluded in capital letters: "WELL DONE!"

But while the joke document is embarrassing in the current climate, it is not concrete evidence that there was a sinister motive behind Wednesday night’s actions.

If he was driven by a bias, or, as one other unsubstantiated and refuted rumour suggests a wager, why, his backers ask, did he leave it so late to make his mark? Why didn’t he keep his flag down when he twice ruled Dado Prso offside in the preceding few minutes when the Rangers striker was bearing in on goal?

"The fact is, even if a mistake was made, it was an honest one and no different from any other error made throughout the course of a game," said a refereeing colleague. "There was no grounds for it but if the SFA had granted Hearts their inquiry the referees would have been up in arms.

"Some naughty things have been said since Wednesday night and some of them have been coming from the dressing room.

"Some of the things that have been said are downright lies. It is alleged the assistant referee would not talk to the Hearts manager. That’s downright rubbish. He was in the toilet, but came out to speak to him. It was also alleged that he apparently said two hands had been used in the incident - again, that’s rubbish. In some ways it might be nice if there was an inquiry because the truth would come out.

"So far we have been keeping our powder dry but this is all becoming ridiculous and it is about time the truth came out. Andy is a strong character and he will come through this but my worry is the impact this will have on refereeing recruitment. Why would anyone want to put themselves through this?"

Hearts themselves seemed to know that an inquiry was a forlorn hope. Robinson labelled it a "big ask", while acting chief executive Sergejus Fedetovas said he may settle for a public apology from Davis. "I want an explanation," said Robinson. "But I think that would be a very significant thing to tell the supporters of the club. If it was the case then maybe referees taking the decisions will think twice, to know for sure."

And therein lies the rub. The clever money suggest that Hearts knew their bid would fail and are simply trying to apply some pressure of their own. They want referees to think twice before ruling against them. Yes, there do seem to be questions about integrity but, perhaps, some of those casting aspersions should shuffle into the dock alongside Andy Davis.

Taken from the Scotsman