SFA told how they got Celtic penalty explanation wrong

Lewis Mayo's handball vs Celtic <i>(Image: Stuart Wallace/Shutterstock)</i>
Lewis Mayo's handball vs Celtic (Image: Stuart Wallace/Shutterstock)
This article is brought to you by our exclusive subscriber partnership with our sister title USA Today, and has been written by our American colleagues. It does not necessarily reflect the view of The Herald.

Michael Stewart has had a pop at the SFA for their explanation over Celtic's penalty at Kilmarnock.

Brendan Rodgers' side were able to take all three points after being awarded a last gasp penalty, tucked away by debut boy Kelechi Iheanacho.

It was given after a shot deflected up off one Kilmarnock defender and onto the outstretched arm of Lewis Mayo, referee John Beaton sent over to the VAR monitor and then agreeing to the award.

Home boss Stuart Kettlewell was fuming and a general consensus is that Mayo could do little about it due to the ricochet from close ranger.

But the SFA's explanation, read out on Sky Sports, was: "The penalty was awarded for handball by the Kilmarnock defender whose arm is in an unnatural position.

"A deflection doesn’t always negate a handball offence. He doesn’t know where ball is going and his arm is up in an unnatural position to block a shot."

Pundit Stewart wasn't buying any of that and couldn't understand the 'doesn't negate' point.

He laid into the governing body and explained why he felt they were wide of the mark.



Speaking on BBC Sportscene, he said: "If it doesn't negate, it would be great for them to tell us why it doesn't negate in this instance.

"To come out with a general comment like that just smacks of 'we are doubling down'.

"And the hand is in an unnatural position? I would disagree with that completely. It comes down to that the hand is in an unnatural position, if the movement doesn't indicate that the hand should be in that position.

"Now, he is trying to get his leg across to block the shot - his arm, if you look at it, is a completely normal position due to the action he has taken.

"I find it staggering that they could comment and say 'the deflection doesn't always negate' - this deflection literally changes the angle of the ball completely, from a foot away, off a teammate.

"So, proximity, deflection and - to me - the arm isn't in an unnatural position. I think it's an extremely harsh decision.

"I think as soon as John Beaton is sent to the monitor it becomes difficult for him to turn around and say no penalty, because it clearly does strike the arm, but I would have liked to think the official could have seen through that and made his own mind up.

"Clearly, it's not been the case and I've got a lot of sympathy for Kilmarnock. I think any team that had that decision given against them would be extremely unhappy."

Get involved
with the news

Send your news & photos