The "golden rule" for me, on any refereeing decision, is to ask how you would view the incident if it happened in reverse.
In Alfie's case, if one of our centre-halfs is caught up with an Aberdeen forward and kicks out while the Aberdeen striker's foot flicks him in the Kelvins, then I think we'd be raging if the sheep player didn't receive the same punishment as ours. So it is what it is and move on!
The Shagger incident is different because it's dealt with after the event, however I would say that had the Aberdeen goalie caught, say, Defoe like that, I'd be looking for a pen and, at least a yellow, so not too much trouble with that either.
The problem is, and make no mistake it is a problem, the massive inconsistencies in the review process which we invariably seem to come off the worst from. Review the McGregor incident by all means, but then the Ferguson retaliation, the Broonaldo assault, the Simunovic elbow, the Burke dying swan, the Power karate kick, the McGinn elbow etc. all have to go through the same process.
And it's not only the selection of what to review it's the "kangaroo court" that follows.....Candieas sending off allowed to stand?!?, Jack red v the sheep last season allowed to stand?!? And the "flexibility" of the "if the referee took action" rule which seems to only affect certain clubs. A few wee well aimed jibes by the manager at press conference can have a much greater affect than "Club Statements" IMHO.