I sincerely hope the Scottish FA are not planning to write to Celtic, seeking understanding of the principle of human fallibility.
But I'm hearing this is a distinct possibility. And if so, if I were Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief-executive, I would be feeling distinctly uneasy.
The SFA, rightly aggrieved at the amount of finance being drained from the Scottish game, are demanding answers from Celtic on their wanton waste of millions of pounds in recent years.
In particular, the SFA are seeking clarity on Lawwell's decision to squander £7m on Mo Bangura, Teemu Pukki, Amido Balde and Derk Boerrigter - precious money that could have stayed within Scottish football.
No specific explanation for this has been forthcoming from Celtic, and the SFA are wanting to know the circumstances in which such obvious errors were made.
At this point it is worth ruling one thing out: the SFA discounts fallibility and the human uncertainty principle. Obviously, these aren't factors. The SFA want something beefier than this for an answer.
Okay�enough sarcasm. I think you'll get my drift. So let's look more closely at this Celtic complaint to the SFA about Sunday's Scottish Cup semi-final defeat to Inverness Caledonian Thistle. Because it is baffling.
A refereeing injustice was served on Celtic. Of course it was. The match referee, Steven McLean, will wince when he watches replays of the incident when Josh Meekings made a blatant one-handed save of Leigh Griffiths' header moments before half-time.
Were it not for that illegal act, Celtic would have gone 2-0 up and have been highly unlikely to lose. It was a terrible refereeing moment.
But what is this weirdness from Celtic now? They want to "seek an understanding of what actually happened" in that moment?
And Celtic add: "We�simply want to understand the circumstances of what went on and why such an obvious error was made."
Huh? What?
One is tempted to add: why do janitors sometimes ring the school bell one minute late? Or, why do car mechanics sometimes insert the wrong valve?
Do we really need this sort of stuff over a human error? I'm at a loss to know how the SFA are supposed to respond to this.
Steven McLean made a mistake. It was a bad one. It was also compounded by the fact that, unlike the old days of a referee and two linesmen, this cup semi had a total of six officials on duty around the pitch, and they all failed to spot Meekings' blatant infringement.
But we know all of this. Fans, cabbies, bus-drivers, even those of us in the media are aware of it. Even Cybil Fawlty gets it.
The "circumstances of why such an obvious error was made" are very simple: human beings are prone to error. It is called the principle of fallibility.
Is anyone really suggesting that something more sinister than this went on at Hampden on Sunday afternoon? Well, alas yes, they are.
It has spawned a cottage industry these past 48 hours, straight out of the 1960s, of irate Celtic fans talking conspiracy, 'Grand Ludgery' and all the other dross that used to come with these things.
Over the last three years, with their incessant conspiracy and persecution theories about the SFA and the like, I thought groups of Rangers fans had claimed this high ground.
But all that has changed since Sunday at Hampden. Certain Celtic fans are now well on top again. Order has been restored.
Rival fans around Scotland must be looking at this Celtic "seeking an explanation" stuff and heartily laughing.
I mean, just how often are their clubs on the receiving end of an unjust decision when playing Celtic? If you gave them 24 hours they could produce a litany of such complaints.
In recent experience Celtic have actually benefitted quite a bit from human blunder. Indeed, this season they were handed a passport to a potential £20m Champions League bonanza by Legia Warsaw's error over Bartosz Bereszynski, before blowing it against Maribor.
"Understanding the circumstances of why the error was made" wasn't really at issue back then for Celtic. It was just bloody brilliant.
The pity is, this faff has overshadowed the fine achievement of Caley Thistle in beating Celtic, knowing how to capitalise on 11 v 10 and boss a game, and reaching a Scottish Cup final. It is a momentous feat.
Do be quiet, Celtic. The referee badly blundered and you lost the game. Get over it. Life goes on.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article