VAR Double Standards? Celtic’s Yang Sent Off, Rangers’ Barron Plays On

There are times, rare though they may be, when I don’t love the notion of pulling up isolated incidents from months ago to make a point. Refereeing is complex, football’s fast-moving, and sometimes looking back feels more like beating a dead horse than sparking genuine insight. But on Sunday at Ibrox, Scottish football’s inconsistency with rule application – and VAR’s wild fluctuation between strictness and leniency – once again reared its ugly head.

Let’s lay it bare: in April, Celtic’s Yang Hyun-jun was issued a yellow for a high boot when they were amid a close title battle at Tynecastle. A yellow, initially. But the VAR screen was then consulted, and suddenly yellow was out, red was in, and Yang was off. His “serious foul play” infraction, as per IFAB guidelines, apparently met the criteria for a straight red. Never mind that Yang, in his attempt to control the ball, wasn’t moving in on Hearts’ Alex Cochrane; it was Cochrane who came into the sphere of Yang’s boot, which, though admittedly close to his head, didn’t make contact. However, according to IFAB’s letter of the law, the potential to endanger Cochrane’s safety justified Yang’s early exit and a two-game suspension. Celtic’s appeal was thrown out, and we had to swallow that,

Fast forward to Ibrox this past Sunday, where Rangers’ Connor Barron found himself involved in a remarkably similar scenario – if anything, this incident carried even greater potential for harm. Barron, unlike Yang, was moving at full tilt, studs up, in the direction of St Mirren’s player, with a leg swung high at head height. Dangerous? Certainly. Endangering his opponent? Absolutely. And yet, no whistle, no card, not even a cursory glance from VAR. Barron played on unimpeached and Rangers continued with 11 men on the field.

The issue here isn’t merely technical, though the inconsistencies in how “serious foul play” is applied would be maddening on their own. It’s about fairness. For Brendan Rodgers and Celtic, the repercussions of that Tynecastle red card could have been huge, but we were told the correct decision was made. So why was the incorrect decision made at Ibrox on Sunday?

This is about consistency, plain and simple. Without it, there’s little point in having VAR at all. Football fans understand that referees are human, that they make mistakes – but when it comes to VAR, a tool designed to remove those very mistakes, the goalposts can’t keep shifting. IFAB rules may leave room for interpretation, but that’s precisely where officials have a duty to bridge the gap between the rulebook and common sense. Dangerous play, by definition, should be evaluated in the same way, regardless of who’s making the challenge.

For fans, it’s hard not to wonder where this leaves us. What’s the message here? Are some players given leniency while others are held to stricter accounts? Or worse, are VAR and its officials cherry-picking their interventions based on circumstances we’re not privy to? Barron’s unpunished high boot, Yang’s penalised one – these incidents, so glaringly similar, bring the integrity of the officiating system into question.

Willie Collum has been praised for being more transparent since taking over as head of referees. Doing a weekly round-up of the most contentious decisions of the week. We would welcome an explanation as to why this wasn’t caught by VAR and a brief example of why Yang had to walk earlier this year, but Barron was okay with going about his business.