Strange as it may sound, behavioural psychology is all the rage in Scotland. It is a novel trend, one initiated by the new chief executive at Celtic, Allan MacDonald. MacDonald, remember, is the man who commissioned a psychological report last May to study the effects of the Old Firm game upon the participants involved, including the crowd.

The mere existence of such a report caused consternation in the conservative world of football when it was revealed a fortnight ago, although that was nothing to the reaction provoked by the insight concerning last May's game's referee, Hugh Dallas.

Dallas, who was struck by a coin during the match, had not helped himself with Celtic's supporters by "patting Rangers players on the bottom", was the report's most-publicised conclusion. In Scotland this has caused no little hysteria, much of it laughter, and is now called Dallasgate. The embarrassment is such that Alan Stubbs said on Friday: "We could have done without all that. What happened in that match happened."

Perhaps it is all misperception, a situation MacDonald will clarify if and when he faces the Scottish Football Association (SFA) bigwigs. The SFA make a decision about that tomorrow. It is far from certain if MacDonald will be summoned to answer a disrepute charge; indeed, there may be those within the SFA who take the view that MacDonald was only providing a service. Dallasgate is simply an unfortunate by-product.

For there was something admirable and original in MacDonald's commission. Trying to get inside the mindset of a player consumed by such an unremitting experience is an ambitious project. Trying to assess the psychological state of Celtic and Rangers fans is less so.

Or at least one would have thought that the case. On Saturday, though, in an effort to garner opinion from Celtic fans as they awaited the Hearts game, it was a struggle to get any angle on the psychological state of Celtic fans in relation to the Barnes-Dalglish new era.

Gallowgate, the location of Bairds, a famous Celtic pub, and Bar 67 (enough said) were visited, yet no matter how many pints were downed, the reticence to criticise Barnes or Dalglish was remarkable. Cod psychology wasn't the catch of the day - though it occurred that having The Fields of Athenry on a continuous loop as the soundtrack to your life is bound to numb the senses eventually.

That was before kick-off, and when Lubo Moravcik and Mark Viduka gave Celtic a two-goal lead by the half hour, the patience of the fans felt sensible. They were looking at their club with an eye on the long-term, even through beer-goggles.

When Colin Cameron scored the Hearts winner seven minutes from the end, however, Celtic's fans seemed blinkered to the uncomfortable truth. They watch and are loyal to a poor side. No amount of analysis can alter that fact.

There is nothing new in this either, but the fanatical secrecy of the topic was puzzling. Scratch a Leeds or Arsenal fan and, despite the success of David O'Leary and Arsene Wenger, criticism is not far beneath the surface. Celtic supporters, however, appeared to be suffering from what could be dubbed The Fields of Athenry Syndrome. As one commentator argued in the Scotsman last week: Put on "some Oirish shite music before kick-off" and they're happy.

Theme Parkhead is the accusation. Even when the final whistle went on Saturday the boos were muted. They should have been furious. Celtic were awful. Worse than Watford.

When it came to offering a critical, realistic and blunt assessment of the club, it took a man who probably thinks Athenry is some park in Glasgow to give it - Eyal Berkovic. Berkovic again had a bad game, tackled like a fairy, and had his commitment questioned again by us part-time shrinks after giving Barnes a small boy's handshake when substituted. But after the match Berkovic spoke with an authority and conviction when others had waffled.

To a question concerning why it had gone wrong for Celtic, Berkovic replied: "Why? Maybe we are not good enough. If we were better then we could have scored a third goal. Maybe we are not good enough."

All right, Berkovic is rarely said to let loyalty cloud his judgment, but his straight talking was a freshening contribution. And an accurate one.

His approach is catching. Not only did Stubbs publicly question MacDonald's behaviour, Craig Burley, not that much of a Celtic old boy, had this to say about the infamous report: "This is a match that took place nine months ago. What Celtic have done won't change a thing. The fact is that Celtic didn't lose the game in question 1-0. They lost 3-0."

Commonsense. But did he say it by a lonely prison wall?