NO GREAT surprise this week that Lucas Neill's red card at Middlesbrough was rescinded.

It was arguable whether any foul had been committed in the first place. If there had there was surely sufficient doubt as to whether an obviously goalscoring opportunity had been prevented.

Rather than lambaste the referee for his original decision, I prefer to analyse why the ref may have taken that course of action. Like it or not we are judged on the big decisions.

We can be technically brilliant for 89 minutes but if we call a critical incident wrong we face the wrath of players, managers and the media.

In addition, failure to carry out mandatory instructions are penalised in a very draconian manner by the match assessor.

In some cases this dereliction of duty is unquestionable. Violent conduct punished by only a yellow card is clearly a gross abdication of responsibility.

Some instances however, are less clear-cut. Whether a guilty defender is the "last man" is often up to a split second assessment. If you caution and the man in the stand thinks it warrants a dismissal you stand to lose a high percentage of marks. Conversley, if you send the guy off and the assessor thinks it is harsh, your loss of kudos is relatively minor.

I'm not saying that referees are deliberately playing safe by sending off players if in doubt.

But it is surely crucial not to load the dice so heavily that sub-consciously we invoke the more severe sanction.

In reality of course this is irrelevant. Rovers fans will know that it was a further example of the refereeing conspiracy against their team.

Funny tough that nobody moaned in the 88th minute at Cardiff when Teddy became unsteady in the box.

Was I alone in awaiting 30,000 Lancastrian voices striking up a rendition of "You're not mingin' anymore?"