Willie Collum has explained why John Souttar WASN’T sent off against Hibs for conceding a penalty and why Jack Butland didn’t have to face a retake after saving it.
Rangers side squeezed out a 1-0 win over Hibs at Ibrox last month, but it wasn’t without controversy. Scotland star Souttar was penalised when he threw up an arm to block Mykola Kukharevych’s close range effort in front of the Copland Road stand. A VAR check informed ref Nick Walsh that the Hibees should be awarded a spot kick.
However, when Walsh asks to see a again to consider if Souttar should be sent for an early bath, VAR Kevin Clancy and him agreed that it wasn’t deliberate. “It’s a correct decision for us,” said refs chief Collum. “It’s very, very close, there’s no question about that. But we think that the Rangers defender throws himself into a mde to save the shit or block the shot at all costs. Unfortunately for him here, he’s made his body bigger and it’s not natural.
“It can be easier to justify a natural position when you’re standing. But when you dive to block a shot, it makes it even more difficult to defend such an arm movement. There’s also a slight arm movement, albeit I don’t think it’s deliberate, but I agree with the on-field referee team and the VAR team that it’s not a deliberate handball, but certainly a punishable handball.”
Hibs players and subsequently fans demanded to know in the aftermath why Souttar wasn’t sent off. To explain why, Collum revealed that Butland’s position was key.
He said: “Here, there’s every opportunity that the goalkeeper can save this shot. The fact that no card was shown could be debated. If the referee had deemed John Souttar’s actions as deliberate, he probably would have received a yellow card for blocking a shot deliberately at such close range from the goal.
“But because the referee and the VAR team don’t deem this as a deliberate handball, there’s no need for a yellow card because that was removed from the laws of the game. We would not support a red card. this is not an obvious goalscoring opportunity because the goalkeeper has the opportunity to save this shot.”
Butland’s position was even more important when he denied Kukharevych from 12 yards. The striker’s penalty was terrible, but VAR had to check whether Butland had kept his foot on the line when the Ukrainian struck he penalty. And it turns out he did…just,
“We’re content,” said Collum. “It’s important when you analyse a clip like this that you get the accurate point when the kicker takes the penalty. You hear the VAR describing the goalkeeper’s back foot being on the line. He says it’s just on the line, which I would accept. On, behind or above the line.
“It’s absolutely correct in terms of law. They’ve used the correct criteria, taken their time to analyse if the kick point is correct and analysed where the goalkeeper is. You can see the foot is on the line and you can see that technically, this is a correct decision.”