The difference between victory and defeat ina close run football match can often hinge on a referee’s decision, particularly when it comes to the awarding of penalties.

A recent case in point is Rangers’ late penalty against Aberdeen, which helped them salvage a point. A penalty awarded for a jersey tug; it raises a broader, more contentious issue: the inconsistent application of rules in the Scottish Premiership.

This inconsistency isn’t about Rangers being awarded a last-minute penalty yet again. Rather, it’s about a consistent pattern where the enforcement of rules seems to favour certain teams, often leading to an uneven playing field.

A glaring example of this is Rangers going nearly 70 SPFL games without conceding a penalty – a statistic that raises eyebrows and questions.

It’s a delicate topic. Mentioning these inconsistencies often leads to accusations of paranoia or obsession, especially in a media landscape that hypocritically amplified Kris Boyd’s comments about Aberdeen exerting more effort against Rangers.

Contrastingly, when Celtic received two well-deserved penalties in their Saturday match, some used it to deflect criticism from officials who awarded Rangers another penalty. But this isn’t about individual matches or teams; it’s about a systemic issue within SPFL officiating.

The central question is: if the penalty at Pittodrie is the benchmark, why is this standard so inconsistently applied across the league? The disparity in decisions not only affects the integrity of the competition but also fuels unnecessary division among fans and clubs. For a fair and competitive league, it’s imperative that officiating is consistent and unbiased, irrespective of the teams involved.

The SPFL has a responsibility to ensure that the rules of the game are applied fairly and uniformly, ensuring that every team has an equal chance to succeed based on their performance, not the whims of inconsistent officiating.