Ultimately, my issue is with the rule.
As I've said above, I don't know why so many players feel compelled to remove their shirts during a celebration, but for whatever reason it seems to be a reflex celebration for some in the emotion of the moment, and as far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the actual laws of our land to say you cannot remove your shirt (especially if you still have a vest on underneath!
).
So, first of all, why should football authorities even be able to enforce "laws" which have no relevance to the actual game and effectively impinge upon individual freedom of expression? If a player removes his shirt to reveal an offensive message or makes an offensive gesture then yes, that can be loosely interpreted as offending decency in a public place and detrimental to the game, so it would be worth a booking.
But that was certainly not the case here. Demarai Gray removed his shirt to reveal a heartfelt tribute to the deceased Leicester Chairman which I'm sure reflected the feelings of most if not all in the stadium and the wider football community. In no way, shape or form can his action be deemed to be offensive or "bringing the game into disrepute", so what purpose is the rule serving? If it cannot allow for discretion in a circumstance such as this, then the 'law' is clearly an ass.
And by the way, if you want to find significant and true examples of "bringing the game of football into disrepute", on a frequent basis, then look no further than the organisation that introduced this 'mandatory ruling' in the first place: FIFA. They have been proven in the past to be both incompetent and corrupt, so who are they are they or their national satellites to make any such laws or judgements?
Was Lee Probert being "professional" by applying the rule? Technically, yes he was, though as I've said above, the explanation that you were "just following orders" or "just applying the law" is not always an adequate defence (particularly at War Crimes Tribunals!)
I can empathise that the referee probably did feel he was in an impossible situation and desperately didn't want to book the player, so I concentrate most of my ire on the authorities who put him in that situation. However, I do find it ironic that Mr Probert managed to rigorously apply a pointless rule which actually has no relevance to football, whilst failing to identify the most obvious infringement of a rule that actually is relevant to football, namely a handling offence in the area which should have resulted in a penalty and a sending off. If we're talking about professionalism, fairness and protecting the best interests and integrity of the game, which decision was more important one to get right?
If nothing else, it demonstrates that referees are being asked to concentrate on the wrong priorities. The football authorities need to spend less time creating new rules and regulations that are irrelevant to the game, and focus instead on ensuring that their referees are sufficiently competent to get the genuine, relevant footballing decisions right. They could actually help those referees by giving them a degree of discretion around the interpretation of non-essential issues such as what is or is not deemed to be "over-celebrating", a phrase I don't even recall existing when I started watching football. Instead of asking refs to apply some sort of abstract one-size-fits-all rule, simply ask them to be consistent for both sides within the game itself.
If the aim of all these rigid and superfluous laws is to create an army of refereeing robots who deliver consistency throughout entire seasons or tournaments, it fails anyway. One glance at the statistics for referees in this or any other recent season will quickly tell you that there are still strict referees and lenient referees, just as there always have been, because no amount of law-making will ever completely iron out the human interpretation factor. All the football authorities have actually achieved is to make their referees' job even harder, and in certain circumstances oblige them to make fools of themselves.