Ethics Shmethics
We now interrupt this debate on the subject of coin-throwing, sectarian singing and banners mocking a manager who objected to religious abuse being hurled at him from the stands inside Ibrox for a discussion on ethics.
You're having a laugh, aren't you?
Motherwell score a goal at Celtic Park on Sunday which clearly contravenes standard custom and practice relating to what should happen when the ball is knocked out of play so that an injured player can be treated.
Was the goal the result of an unethical breach of standard procedure?
Yes.
Was the goal unlawful and able to be disallowed by the referee?
No.
Is there room for breast beating along with wailing and gnashing of teeth over this flagrant disregard for fair play?
Do me a favour.
It was a con job and the only saving grace was that Motherwell's disreputable actions did not have a material influence on the outcome of a game with a significant bearing on the outcome of the title race.
Had that not been the case then the Scottish game's fatal fascination with controversy would have reached new heights.
What will happen is that the Celtic players will put the incident into the collective memory bank and take revenge at some later date on the basis that what goes around comes around.
This is normal.
But, in the meantime, spare me the moral outrage.
Any team who can win an unfair advantage will take the opportunity with the full backing of supporters who will always back the principle that all is fair in love, war and football matches.
Ethics are for people in other walks of life.
If your player gets away with simulation that's fine. If your player gets an opponent sent off and it works to your advantage that's the referee's fault for missing it.
The spirit of the game is a luxury that can't be afforded when points, or prizes, are at stake.
You would kick your granny to win and never look back to see if she was okay.
Kevin Clancy couldn't intervene when Motherwell stole a goal because no law had been infringed.
Celtic took matters into their own hands when they put the ball out of play so that Ryan Christie could be examined, and there was nothing the match official could do when Motherwell then decided to play fast and loose with an arrangement that's not worth the paper it isn't written on.
But supporters can't really congregate on the moral high ground at this particular time, can they?
If what happened to Celtic should one day affect Rangers then some of their fans could hardly talk about ethics when they show such disregard for orderly behaviour.
Days after the Ibrox chairman, Dave King, issued a strongly worded statement abhorring sectarianism among his club's following some fans went to the game against Hamilton Accies and indulged in the same unsavoury conduct which prompted the boardroom message in the first place.
They acted in defiance of their own club, showed disregard for Rangers' reputation and generally thumbed their nose at those who had dared to remonstrate with them over their misbehaviour.
Likewise, those who threw a coin at Kris Boyd and went in for a sectarian sing-song aimed at the former Rangers player now employed by Kilmarnock when Celtic visited Rugby Park the previous weekend don't really have much room to complain about ethics, do they?
Referees will now have to be instructed to brief players on precisely what should happen whenever the ball is voluntarily put out of play in response to an injured opponent needing help.
Clarity comes before controversy, or at least it should.
Outraged fans, meanwhile, should remember the age old rule of thumb that applies to any manipulation of rules, standard practices or things that are done on a regular basis.
If your team did it and got away with it, whatever 'it' was, would you complain on the basis that it contradicted some Corinthian code of fair play?
No, you wouldn't.
It's a case of ethics shmethics until a rule is put in place which outlaws what Motherwell did at Celtic Park on Sunday