Scott Wright’s disallowed Rangers strike against Hibs was a “weird scenario” that explains why managers are getting so upset with officiating, says Lee McCulloch.
Speaking on PLZ Soccer’s The Football Show on 1 April the ex-Ibrox captain reacted to the involvement of VAR in the first half of the Light Blues’ 3-1 victory over Hibs on Saturday (30 March), branding it “very, very strange” for the winger’s rebound goal to be ruled out, for encroachment on James Tavernier’s saved penalty, and the game to play on without a retake.
He wasn’t convinced the original penalty award, given by David Dickinson after consulting the monitor to review an accidental arm in the face of John Souttar, should have been given, and was the latest pundit to react with bemusement to the second review chopping off the goal.
McCulloch said (11m 10s): “It was a weird scenario for me. The penalty, I’m not sure it was a definite penalty, and then he’s missed the penalty, James Tavernier, and then the encroachment from Scott Wright but I think there was encroachment from Hibs as well. So it would suggest a retake? But I don’t know, has anybody come out and said anything to explain that?”
Peter Martin knowingly replied: “Do you expect that to happen? I don’t know what you’re hoping for there.”
“It’s a very, very strange one,” continued McCulloch, “and you can see why clubs and managers are getting more and more annoyed.”
Officials leave observers bemused as Rangers beat Hibernian
It is probably a good thing that the whole episode didn’t end up having a major effect on the result, since Rangers didn’t score but won relatively comfortably in the end anyway.
If it had then the general lack of agreement on any part of the video assistant’s involvement would have led to far more recriminations.
As it was the apparent foul by Nectarios Triantis on Souttar was debatable, since the Gers defender barely got off the ground before he was hit in the face and the Hibs man clearly didn’t intend to connect with him.
Michael Stewart was enraged by the decision, although at the same time he surely knows as well as anyone that the majority of infringements aren’t actually intended, hence the existence of the professional foul concept, so just because something is an accident doesn’t automatically mean it is okay.
Wright did have a foot inside the box so had Tavernier scored originally it would have been retaken, but because the kick was missed it was deemed a free kick to Hibs [Daily Record, 30 March], although it appears to be a matter of opinion as to whether Hibs defenders were actually in the box themselves.
The officials considered Wright to be the only man over the line so based on that the decision they may have eventually got it right, but as it took a delay and a second VAR review, after a contentious one had already increased the controversy, it was probably never going to leave anyone very happy.
If officials, or at least the officiating body, came out to clarify instances like that it would at least give everyone a clear understanding of what is officially supposed to have happened, but even then it unlikely would avoid arguments.
GET MORE NEWS HERE
Leave a Reply