Former SPFL referee Bobby Madden has weighed in on the decision not to award Rangers a penalty in their clash against Celtic. Madden’s detailed explanation sheds light on the intricacies of the VAR process, emphasising that, despite Rangers fans’ grievances and conspiratorial whispers, a penalty was never on the cards due to an offside identified in the build-up to the incident.
According to Madden, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) would have reviewed the potential penalty, and even if it had initially been given on the field, the Attacking Phase Possession (APP) check would have revealed the offside, nullifying the penalty decision. This multi-step process, while complex, aims to maintain fairness and transparency in the game’s officiating.
The former referee’s clarification comes amidst a backdrop of a meltdown from the Rangers’ fanbase and calls from the club’s management and board for the VAR room’s audio to be made public.
The demands come across as petulant and childish, especially considering Madden’s own leanings towards Rangers, which lend credence to his impartial assessment of the situation.
Madden’s explanation aims to dispel myths of bias and assure all parties that the right decision was reached according to the laws of the game.
He wrote on his Instagram:
“Another Old Firm game has come with its fair share of controversy and the usual blend of misinformation and poor reporting. In my view, we witnessed a clear punishable handball offence. Such incidents are notoriously difficult for referees to detect, and thus the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system is tasked with reviewing all decisions in the penalty area.
Had the penalty been awarded on the field, it would have been subsequently overturned once VAR reviewed the Attacking Phase Possession (APP). Since no initial award was made, VAR would have examined the play; if VAR determined a penalty was warranted, they would have also reviewed the APP to ascertain any offside positions. To prevent any misunderstanding, an on-field review by the referee would be necessitated to make the final call. If the referee on review agreed with the penalty, they would then highlight the offside to reset play accordingly.
If, however, the referee concluded that no penalty occurred, the game would resume from the point of interruption. Admittedly, this process can seem laborious, but it exists to ensure clarity in the decision-making process.
In essence, VAR did not believe a penalty was due. The later release of an offside image served to justify the decision not to intervene. Ultimately, it seems the correct decision was made.
A point of clarification: if no offside had occurred in the APP and a penalty had been given, it would not constitute a cautionable offence. It certainly wouldn’t be grounds for a second yellow card for handball, contrary to what some might argue.
I hope this clarification is helpful, and I wish everyone a happy New Year.”
Fair play to Bobby Madden for coming out with this. I’d have expected him and the brethren to keep schtum and allow the filth their “we wuz hard dun by” excuses, so this is a surprise. Now am I being cyncical in suspecting the real reason for it is to try and deflect from their recent more obvious biases…?
Ssshurely shome mishtake?
If the sfa give out the audio then the precident will be set.. Every team will want this when sevco get their penalty in every game. They should accept defeat and move on
As usual this whole incident is nothing more than a sham from the scum and backed up by SKY?
Only trying to highlight where the scum are getting hard done by, which is nothing more than a lie with VAR, upon the same scale as the survival lie imo.
As poor as the whole process of the use of VAR within Scottish football has been used, especially when only the scum have been the only benefactors from the whole sham of it, unreal now that the scum are whining looking for clarification?
It couldn’t be more simpler, even for such thick zombies?
Offside means no handball, and very easy for SKY to have highlighted that at h/t.
But they didn’t?
So the only question remains as to WHY didn’t they do so?
Would they have covered the incident in the same manner, if it happened up at the other end?
We all know the answers to the questions, so believe that ourselves need the real clarity from SKY themselves imo?
SKY are nothing more than another bunch of scum cheerleaders and need to be called out for been so also imo
Any chance of them checking the penalty claim on Turnbull..
He was clearly onside therefore VAR should have checked and penalty given…..oh wait..its 74 games now..🤣