What Happened: The Incident In Full
Match: Kilmarnock vs Celtic, Scottish Premiership, at Rugby Park.
Score: 1–1, deep in stoppage time. Celtic pushing for a winner.
Incident: A cross/ball ends up in the area, and it appears to deflect off a Kilmarnock player (Robbie Deas) and then hits Lewis Mayo’s arm. The initial decision on the pitch by referee John Beaton is no penalty.
VAR intervention: From the booth, VAR official Matthew MacDermid and assistant Ross Hardie review the footage. The key phrases recorded in their discussion are:
“It does come off the Kilmarnock player … off the defender.”
“But the hand is there from the body. Outstretched from the body and it’s up at shoulder height.”
MacDermid then instructs Beaton to go to the monitor: “So John, when you come, you will see that it comes off the Kilmarnock captain, onto the arm, but the arm is up at shoulder height and away from the body.”
On‑field review: Beaton goes to the monitor, sees the angle(s), then overturns the “no penalty” on‑field decision and awards Celtic a penalty. Kelechi Iheanacho converts it, giving Celtic a 2–1 win.
The Rules & Interpretation: Handball Law Under IFAB & Recent Changes
To understand why the VAR team decided as they did, it’s essential to look at the handball law as it currently stands, and how it has been clarified recently (for this season):
The IFAB rules (International Football Association Board) define what is considered handball, particularly when it is non‑deliberate. Among the key points:
- If the hand/arm is extended laterally (out to the side) or vertically away from the body, especially if it’s above shoulder height, this is more likely to be considered an offence.
- The law draws a distinction between what is “natural” and “unnatural” arm positions. A natural position could be something like when falling, or for balance/support. When the arm is above the shoulder, by extension, or positioned away from the body, it’s more likely to be deemed “unnatural” or making the body “unnaturally bigger.”
- The boundary between the shoulder and arm is defined as the bottom of the armpit. Anything above that (or significantly away from the body/torso silhouette) is more likely to be penalised.
- A ball touching a hand/arm after a deflection does not necessarily absolve the player of handball if the arm was in an unnatural position. The new rule states that a deflection doesn’t automatically make the contact lawful.
What has changed or been clarified this season is the emphasis on unnatural position, risk taken by arm being away from body, above shoulder height, and that even accidental contact can be penalised under certain circumstances (depending on how the law frames advantage, whether a goal‑scoring opportunity is created, or whether the position is considered “taking a risk”).
In the Celtic vs Kilmarnock case:
The VAR’s language (“arm … up at shoulder height and away from the body”, “outstretched”) matches the kinds of terms used in IFAB’s guidance for when a handball should be penalised.
The deflection (off Deas) is acknowledged, but the key seems to be not who it deflected off, but where the arm was, how it was positioned, whether it was making the body unnaturally bigger, and whether the position was avoidable or “risky.”
What the VAR Audio Reveals About Decision‑Making
A few observations from the audio:
- Honesty / clarity of the talk: The VAR officials articulate exactly what they see — arm away from body, shoulder height. There’s no attempt in the audio (at least publicly) to hide ambiguity. They make it clear that this positioning is a key factor in deciding to intervene.
- Speed and confidence: The conversation suggests that VAR officials believed strongly enough that the on‑field decision was wrong — enough to call the referee over to the monitor. They use definitive language (“hand is there from the body … outstretched … up at shoulder height”) rather than uncertain qualifiers.
- Subjectivity remains central: Even with the multiple camera angles and slow‑motion replays, the officials are having to interpret what is “away from body,” whether the arm was “unnaturally positioned,” etc. These are not black‑and‑white metrics.
- On‑field decision reversed: The on‑field referee initially saw things differently (or at least was not ready to give a penalty), but the VAR review changed that. The on‑field review is an important mechanism — VAR does not decide automatically, but can trigger a review by the referee at a pitch‑side monitor.
The SFA Panel’s Contrast: Disagreement After the Fact
After the match, the Scottish FA Key Match Incident Panel (sometimes called the VAR Independent Review Panel, or a similar oversight/review each matchday or after key incidents) reviewed the decision. Their finding:
By a 2‑1 majority, they concluded that the on‑field decision should have stood; i.e. they believe the penalty should not have been awarded.
In their statement: “Two panel members felt the VAR intervention was incorrect and a penalty kick should not have been awarded for a handball. One panel member felt VAR was correct to intervene.”
This shows:
Even among experts, with all replays available, there is room for reasonable disagreement.
The panel is not convinced that the positioning or contact met the standard for overturning the decision. Perhaps for them, the “unnatural” component was more ambiguous, or that the arm’s position might have been borderline.
The presence of dissent (i.e. one member feeling VAR was correct) indicates that the evidential standard is not being met uniformly, in the eyes of some.
Reactions, Criticism, Praise & the Broader Debate
Because the decision was so late in the game and so consequential, reactions have been intense.
Celtic fans consider it a just reward; others see it as another example of VAR favouring certain clubs (or at least being more likely to be invoked in tight games involving the big sides).
Kilmarnock, former referees, pundits etc., have criticised the decision. Some say that the rules are too vague; that the interpretation is inconsistent; that what counts as “unnatural” is being stretched.
Some commentators and ex‑refs argue that in past games similar arm positions were not penalised; hence the issue is about consistency.
On the other hand, there are defenders of the decision saying that if the arm is indeed raised, outstretched, away from the body, and at or above shoulder height, then under the recent law tweaks, a penalty is within the rules.
Where Does This Fit in Scottish Football’s VAR Record?
To understand the significance, it’s helpful to see how this incident aligns with general trends in Scotland’s Premiership since VAR was introduced, and how handball has become one of the most contentious areas.
VAR was introduced in Scotland in October (2022).
Over that time, a number of high-profile handball incidents have drawn criticism. Hugh Dallas (former SFA referees head) has said that the interpretation, more than the technology, causes issues. He’s said that Law 12 (handball) is one of the hardest to interpret under the modern rules.
Independent review panels have found that there are still a significant number of “wrong decisions” (or decisions that are considered incorrect under scrutiny) in Premiership matches. For example, in one round there were 13 errors identified, up from 3 in an earlier round.
Statistics show that a large majority of VAR reviews do not alter an on‑field decision; many are “silent checks.” But when they do, particularly in the late stages of matches, the effects can be large.
All this means that the Celtic‑Kilmarnock case is not an isolated one — it joins a pattern of challenging decisions, especially around handball, arm position, and what counts as “unnatural.”
Implications For Celtic, Kilmarnock, and the Title Race
For Celtic, they picked up a crucial three points. In a tight title race, these late‑wins (or late decisions) can make the difference between success and failure.
But there’s the reputational cost: having a big decision in their favour so late will again lead to scrutiny and accusations of bias, or of benefiting from VAR when others haven’t.
For Kilmarnock, and smaller clubs more generally, these incidents foster a sense of injustice — that big moments go one way, perhaps influenced by perception, history, or simply the stakes of the match.
What This Reveals About Officiating, VAR & Transparency
From the video/audio release and this post‑match fallout, several broader lessons emerge:
- Technology doesn’t erase subjectivity. Even with replays, slow motion, multiple angles, you still need to decide whether an arm is “away from body,” whether it’s “above shoulder height,” whether the contact was avoidable or part of a natural movement. All these are judgment calls.
- Need for clarity and precedent. The more examples released (audio, video) the better — to build a body of precedent so that both officials and fans can see consistent application. That means even minor matches and incidents being publicly reviewed.
- Transparency helps, but only up to a point. Releasing the audio gives insight, but doesn’t necessarily settle debates. In this case, even after hearing everything, experts disagree. But it does raise awareness of how decisions are made, which helps build trust (or at least understanding).
- Rules might need further refining. If many decisions are borderline, that suggests either the law is too fuzzy, or its interpretation/training is uneven. Maybe IFAB / national FAs need to issue more detailed guidelines, or perhaps video examples, to help referees and VAR teams align more closely.
- Fan expectations need management. Supporters often see a clearly raised arm and expect a penalty — but what they don’t see is the precise angle, the speed, what the ref or VAR sees in real time. These gaps in understanding breed frustration.
- Consistency is crucial. One of the biggest criticisms of VAR is not just that decisions are made, but that similar incidents do not always lead to similar outcomes. Consistency across matches, referees, VAR officials, and competition levels will be key to legitimacy.
What Could / Should Happen Next
Given this incident and what the audio reveals, there are several possible or advisable paths forward to reduce controversy and improve confidence in VAR decisions:
Publish more VAR audio/video for contentious incidents — not only big games with big clubs, but also smaller ones. Make this regular, not exceptional.
Release annotated examples (by SFA or IFAB) showing what handball decisions (involving arm height, deflection, natural/unnatural positions) should be penalised, and those which shouldn’t. These act like precedents.
Training and monitoring: ensure VAR officials and referees are as aligned as possible. Regular evaluations, review sessions, consistency checks.
Refine (if needed) the definitions in the handball law, or provide additional guidance on edge cases. For example, define more clearly what “away from the body” means, how much arm extension is “too much,” how to treat deflections.
Better communication to fans: when decisions are made (especially controversial ones), give a clear explanation, possibly via VAR audio release plus a short written summary of reasoning. That transparency helps reduce suspicion.
The Celtic‑Kilmarnock Decision in Perspective
Putting this all together: the decision is defensible under the current rules, especially given how VAR described the arm position (“up at shoulder height, outstretched, away from the body”). Under IFAB’s law changes and clarifications, those are key criteria for penalising handball, even if accidental.
However, it is also understandable why the SFA panel and many observers believe the penalty should not have been awarded:
The margins are razor thin: sometimes in replays angles can make arms look raised/outstretched, when in live speed it looks less clear.
If arms are only marginally away from the body, or if the arm was raised as part of a natural movement, then penalising becomes more questionable.
The fact that two out of three panel members saw it differently suggests that some of the angles or elements left room for doubt.
Final Reflection: Is This a Defining Moment for VAR in Scotland?
This incident may well come to be looked back on as one of the symbolic moments in Scotland’s VAR journey — the kind of case that fans, pundits, referees, analysts refer to when debating whether VAR is improving the game, or simply adding new layers of argument.
The release of audio means we can judge for ourselves what was said. That kind of transparency is relatively new.
The split in expert opinion (via the panel) underlines how far from perfect VAR is, especially in the realm of handball and subjective foul/penalty calls.
It intensifies pressure on the SFA and IFAB to refine guidelines, training, and perhaps even rule wording.
Whether this will lead to concrete changes (in guidelines, training, public explanations) — that remains to be seen. But it’s almost certain that decision‑makers, referees, and clubs will point to this case as part of the argument for why consistency and clarity are essential.