I'm not invalidating their decision, but what I am saying is that they just don't know enough about the laws of the game...at all. And most of them would admit it. It is well known that many players, managers and pundits do not know enough about the laws of the game, **** I know of a few who have publicly admitted it.
You cannot have an unqualified manager giving a rating for a referee, especially if that referee had been involved in that particular managers match. Can you imagine if we had managers like Arsene Wenger, who fails to see anything that his team has done wrong, in the same room as a referee, trying to judge him? It just wouldn't work.
The only way we can improve relations between Managers and Referees is if the clubs actually send along delegates, managers and players to the regular meetings that the SFA hold with their referees to discuss decisions. Also, players need to actually know all the laws of the game, and I think that they should be put through the referee test, or at least a test on the laws of the game. Especially the younger ones (I remember a match with Ross County vs Hamilton u/14's where they were trying to say that you could be offside from a throw-in) and it wouldn't harm them. This guy at the Killie match will most likely be punished, just look at the fixtures and where he is thrown to. Remember the famous incident at with Rangers and Hearts last season? From getting pretty much an SPL game every week, he was thrown down to do 3rd and 2nd Division matches for a few months. That is how you punish them.
I do agree that there should be a board where managers can discuss certain decisions, shed light and have some form of input, but in the form of actually rating the referee it can't be done.