Willie Collum salutes 'perfect' Rangers no goal VAR protocol as damning Maeda fallout triggers change

Daily Record

25-04-2025

Willie Collum has saluted the VAR protocol which denied Rangers and Hamza Igamane - weeks after a damning indictment over Daizen Maeda's disallowed goal at Easter Road. The referee chief admits officials will ace every judgement call but Collum was bullish as he insisted that lessons had been learned and it was textbook stuff from his men on the field during the 2-2 draw with Aberdeen. Collum concedes guarantees are non-starter but there was no mea culpa from the big call in Rangers' visit to the Granite City earlier this month. A previous incident happened earlier in the campaign at Easter Road with Collum holding his hands up at the time and admitting the decision against Celtic was wrong. Speaking on the VAR Review show, Collum explained: "It is the same process. I want to be open and say again, it emphasises the coaching we are delivering. We learn from previous decisions that it is important people say you make mistakes, you come and say it is an error, well how do you go about fixing it? "We coach the match officials and here this is handled the way we want it to be handled. "The assistant referee says the ball is out of play. But he delays the flag perfect in terms of the VAR protocol because if he triggers too early and flags and the referee blows for a goal-kick, the goal is scored then it is a point of no return. We can't award the goal. "So he delays the flag then says when the ball hits the net 'ball out of play, goal-kick'. The VAR immediately go into a check then "They don't have any angle. There is nothing to say what the assistant referee has said is wrong. We could look at this clip right now and for us it looks like the ball is out of play, but can we absolutely guarantee it? Can we prove it? No. So we support the on-field decision there. "This is textbook in the way we expect this incident to be handled. Importantly as well I should emphasize the correct protocol is followed, allowing the goal to be scored then we go back and deal with the situation." Asked about the frustration from players, clubs and fans that they want definitive proof and why they can't get that, he continued: "Remember I spoke about at the Hibs vs Celtic incident that people said if you had goal-line technology that would solve the problem? "But the watch and audio for goal-line technology only triggers when the ball enters the goal. It doesn't trigger when it goes either side of the goal. "Again, we utilise the angles. Here is a live TV match for example [Hibs vs Celtic] and the goal-line camera doesn't identify the ball being in or out. It is just the angle it is at. So we have to rely on the other angle which looks out and it looks like the assistant referee has made the correct call but we can't be definitive. If we can't be definitive we support the on field decision." A second incident took place in the game involving Kevin Nisbet with his strike ruled out. Collum added: "The laws of the game are quite clear. If it strikes your arm whether it is intentional or not and you score directly then the goal must be disallowed. It doesn't count in this situation. Many people will disagree with that but that is the law and what we need to take into account here. " Last weekend at Hampden, two flashpoints came under review by VAR as Celtic ran out huge winners in the Scottish Cup semi-final. The first was a disallowed goal for the Saints for a push on Adam Idah. The referee initially allowed the goal to stand but it was then overturned on review. Collum said: "I am convinced by this decision. You need to talk about threshold. Football is a contact sport and it is possible you could be touching somebody and not pushing them. Here though I think there is a pushing motion and it is clear for me." On a penalty being overturned on James Forrest, he added: "There is an initial challenge outside the box. When they come inside the first challenge is what the referee awards the penalty for and the VAR immediately has to go into a check there. "The referee's position could have been better. He gives himself thinking time but he could have been closer to the incident. "I have to say watching live, I was watching the footage live in the VAR centre and for me, it looked like a penalty kick. "When you start to analyse it, the challenge the referee has punished there is no contact or minimal contact. I actually don't think there is any. "The Celtic player goes down, there has been talk over an arm coming across but that is not enough in terms of a threshold for us to award a penalty kick here. This is a correct intervention again. Bring the referee to the monitor and let them see it."