This incident highlights the ongoing debate about VAR and its impact on football. The decision to disallow Celtic’s late goal against Hibernian has sparked controversy, with Brendan Rodgers questioning the process and the clarity of the evidence used. His point is valid—if the assistant referee, who arguably had the best view of the incident, did not indicate that the ball was out of play, then the VAR official should have had absolutely conclusive evidence to overturn the original decision. This raises concerns about the standards of proof being applied in such crucial moments.
A key aspect adding to the controversy is the absence of a pitchside review. According to IFAB rules, for “factual” decisions such as whether the ball was out of play, a “VAR-only review” is typically used. However, an on-field review (OFR) can still be conducted if it would help the referee manage the match or “sell” the decision, especially in high-stakes moments. Given the significance of the goal and its timing, it could be argued that sending Steven McLean to the monitor might have helped with transparency and match management. This would have at least demonstrated to players, coaches, and fans that every measure was taken to ensure the right call.
This incident raises broader questions about the consistency of VAR implementation. While VAR aims to reduce human error and enhance fairness, controversies like this suggest it is sometimes causing more confusion than clarity. The inconsistency in how and when referees are advised to check the monitor undermines confidence in the system. The incident at Easter Road is just another example fueling the debate over whether VAR is being used consistently or if it is contributing to ongoing controversies in football officiating.
Get more news HERE
Leave a Reply