Two VAR errors were committed in November involving Celtic, according to Willie Collum Confessed.

Two VAR errors were committed in November involving Celtic, according to Willie Collum. Willie Collum has been contemplating two significant decisions regarding Celtic since the most recent episode of the SFA’s VAR Review program was released.

 

Host Gordon Duncan and the SFA’s director of referee operations, Collum, analyze Daizen Maeda’s disallowed goal against Motherwell and Reo Hatate’s tackle on Kilmarnock’s Liam Donnelly in the November video.

 

 

It is important to mention that the SFA has already stated that Celtic should have been awarded a penalty for the Maeda incident at Fir Park and that Hatate should have been issued a red card for his challenge on Donnelly.

 

 

However, Collum has now authorized those communications with comprehensive justifications. Below, you will find Collum’s commentary on both flashpoints.

 

 

Column regarding the Daizen Maeda Motherwell incident Motherwell’s right-back Stephen O’Donnell’s foul on Maeda within the penalty area resulted in the Japanese winger inadvertently scoring with his palm.

 

 

The VAR audio from the game indicates that the officials believed Maeda and O’Donnell were only interacting, and, in their opinion, the incident did not constitute a penalty. Consequently, the goal was disallowed.

 

 

However, Collum has since stated that this was an error of judgment and that Celtic were unfairly treated. He declared, “The initial phase is unambiguous for us; it is an unlawful objective.”

 

 

“However, the VAR and AVAR should immediately undergo a review to determine the potential penalty.” The referee’s on-field communication has been observed, and a goal has been awarded.

 

 

However, the infraction has not been identified.In addition, the match referee has stated that he believes the contact between the defender and the attacker is usual. We believe that this is not a typical form of communication.

 

 

“We believe that the Celtic attacker is more advanced than the Motherwell defender.” We believe that the Motherwell defender’s arm movement results in a leg-on-ground collision.

 

 

“We believe that this should be a penalty kick, in addition to the arms and legs.” We would like the on-field referee to be summoned to review this incident, and in our opinion, a penalty kick should have been awarded.

 

Column, “So for us, Gordon, this is a red card for serious foul play,” when asked whether the tackle should have resulted in a red card. “We would like the decision to be identified on the field and a red card to be issued; however, a yellow card was issued.”

 

 

However, we acknowledge that it is challenging to operate at peak capacity. “The VAR is adept at examining this from a variety of perspectives when it is reviewed.” They employ criteria to discuss force, which involves drawing the leg back.

 

 

“They do mention that the leg is high and that the studs are on the leg.” However, these are two criteria that are exceedingly evident to us. The player arrives late, the limb is extremely high, and the studs are fully extended.

 

 

The VAR and AVAR do not reference the criteria of whether this poses a threat to the safety of an opponent. Upon further review, we have determined that this does pose a threat to the protection of an opponent.