The controversial penalty that helped hand Hibernian a dramatic 2-1 win over Rangers at Ibrox has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the days since the match, with a fresh television angle offering some explanation for why the spot-kick was awarded — even as a string of pundits continue to describe the decision as harsh, and in some cases “pedantic,” on Rangers’ part.
The incident occurred with the match still goalless, when Rangers defender Vanja Dragojević became entangled with Hibernian’s Jason Kerr as a cross floated into the box. Notably, none of the Hibernian players immediately appealed for a foul in the moment the contact occurred — there was no obvious call for a penalty from anyone on the pitch. Despite that, VAR official Matthew MacDermid intervened, instructing referee Don Robertson to review the incident on the pitch-side monitor. After doing so, Robertson reversed his original stance and pointed to the spot. Josh Campbell converted the resulting penalty, and Hibs went on to claim a dramatic 2-1 victory in Glasgow courtesy of a stoppage-time winner from Callum Wright.
Much of the post-match discussion has centred on a specific detail highlighted by a replay angle shown on BBC’s Sportscene coverage. That footage appeared to show Dragojević facing directly toward Kerr at the moment he initiated contact with him — rather than watching the flight of the ball as it came into the box. In simple terms, the suggestion is that the Rangers defender’s attention was on his opponent rather than on the cross itself in the split second the coming-together took place, and that this detail may have been a significant factor in the officials’ decision that a foul had occurred.
This nuance — the idea that where a defender is looking can influence whether contact in a crowded box is judged intentional or accidental — has become the central talking point in explaining why VAR chose to get involved in an incident that, in real time, drew no immediate protest from either the Hibernian players or, seemingly, many neutral observers watching live.
Despite that explanation, reaction from the punditry circuit has been largely critical of the penalty award, even where pundits have tried to rationalise why officials made the call they did.
Speaking on Premier Sports, former Rangers and Aston Villa full-back Alan Hutton described the penalty as soft, while acknowledging the detail about Dragojević’s positioning may have played into the officials’ thinking. Hutton’s overall assessment was that both players were more or less equally at fault in the coming-together, with contact happening on both sides rather than a clear, one-sided foul.
Former Dundee manager Tony Docherty offered a broadly similar view, agreeing the penalty had looked soft and pointing to the same detail about Dragojević’s positioning as the likely explanation for the intervention. Docherty noted that, watching the incident unfold in real time, it hadn’t struck him as a clear penalty situation at all, and suggested that VAR’s decision to get involved in an incident of this nature was overly pedantic given the muddled, mutual nature of the contact between the two players.
Former Rangers player Andy Halliday, discussing the incident on BBC’s coverage, acknowledged that Dragojević did appear to initiate the contact while seemingly not focused on the ball, but was careful to frame this within the wider context of what typically happens at corner-kick situations. He pointed out that any player putting hands on an opponent in the box inevitably runs a risk under the current interpretation of the laws, but expressed concern about incidents like this becoming a new baseline for awarding penalties from corners this season. Halliday also highlighted that Kerr himself had a hand on Dragojević’s face and an arm around his neck during the same passage of play, arguing that if anything, the contact could reasonably be viewed as a foul in both directions rather than something that should result in a penalty for only one side. He added that he had hoped Robertson would have had the conviction to stick with his original on-field call even after being sent to review the monitor, rather than reversing his decision.
Former Celtic captain Scott Brown was even more pointed in his criticism, but directed much of it toward Dragojević’s positioning and marking rather than defending the penalty call itself. Brown argued that the Rangers defender had been far too loose in how he was marking Kerr in the build-up, standing well off him with no real contact initially, which in his view made the situation harder to defend legitimately once the two players did eventually come together. Despite that critique of the marking, Brown was clear in his overall verdict that he did not consider the incident worthy of a penalty, arguing that if this level of contact were to be punished consistently, penalties would become an almost weekly occurrence in matches up and down the country. He did concede that Dragojević was the player who initiated the coming-together, but felt that alone wasn’t sufficient justification for a spot-kick, given the routine nature of jostling and contact at corners generally.
Beyond the pundits assessing the players’ individual actions, former referees Steve Conroy and Des Roache both placed responsibility for the controversy squarely on the VAR team’s decision-making, rather than on Robertson’s ultimate call once he had been sent to the monitor. Their shared view reflects a recurring theme in discussions of VAR controversies more broadly: that once a referee is instructed to review an incident pitch-side, there is often significant pressure, implicit or otherwise, to change the original decision — meaning the more consequential moment in incidents like this one tends to be the initial choice by the video officials to intervene at all, rather than what the on-field referee ultimately decides once standing in front of the monitor.
That view aligns closely with the broader “clear and obvious error” debate that has surrounded this incident and others in Scottish football recently — the question of whether an initial non-penalty decision met the threshold required for video review to be triggered, rather than simply whether a foul, viewed in isolation, technically occurred.
The reaction to the penalty wasn’t confined to broadcast punditry. The Ref’s View, a podcast account focused specifically on refereeing decisions, posted strong criticism of the call on social media, describing it as an incredible decision given that both players appeared equally involved in the coming-together. The account argued there was no way to fairly punish one player’s role in the contact without acknowledging the other’s, and suggested that if this standard of contact were to be treated as punishable throughout the season, it could make for a long campaign in terms of contentious penalty decisions.
Taken together, the range of reaction to this incident reflects just how genuinely divisive marginal penalty decisions of this kind have become in the VAR era. On one hand, there is a clear technical justification being offered — the detail about Dragojević’s positioning and apparent focus on his opponent rather than the ball — that at least explains the reasoning process which led referee Don Robertson to award the penalty after his review. On the other hand, almost every pundit and former official commenting on the incident has expressed some degree of discomfort with the outcome, whether framed as the contact being genuinely mutual, the initial call not meeting the threshold for review in the first place, or simply a broader worry about where the bar for awarding penalties from set-piece situations is now being set.
This tension — between a technically defensible explanation and a widespread sense among experienced players, managers, and officials that the call still felt harsh — is symptomatic of a broader debate that has been playing out across Scottish football, and indeed in leagues throughout Europe, since the introduction of VAR. The technology was designed to eliminate clear, obvious errors, not to introduce a new, more forensic standard of scrutiny to incidents that referees have traditionally been trusted to adjudicate using discretion and real-time judgement. When incidents like the Dragojević-Kerr coming-together — largely un-appealed for at the time, and characterised even by those defending the officials’ logic as involving contact from both players — result in a penalty being given, it inevitably reopens questions about where exactly that line is being drawn, and by what consistent standard
It’s also worth situating this controversy within the wider picture at Ibrox. The defeat left new Rangers manager Derek McInnes still searching for his first win in charge after three matches, following an opening-day draw with Dundee United and a Europa League qualifying defeat in Poland. Rangers have also been contending with the serious injury suffered by striker Youssef Chermiti in the same match, adding further disappointment to what was already a difficult afternoon at Ibrox regardless of the penalty controversy.
Rangers’ hierarchy have separately confirmed they are seeking clarification from the Scottish FA over how the decision was reached, with chief executive Jim Gillespie raising the matter directly with supporters at the club’s shareholder meeting the following morning. That institutional pushback, combined with the wall of pundit criticism in the days since, suggests this particular penalty is likely to remain a reference point in the ongoing conversation about VAR standards in Scottish football for some time to come — regardless of whether the specific camera angle explaining the officials’ reasoning ultimately persuades sceptics that the call was correct.
For now, the incident stands as a useful illustration of just how fine the margins have become in decisions of this kind: a passage of play that drew no immediate appeal on the pitch, was described by multiple pundits as involving fault on both sides, and yet was still deemed, on review, to warrant one of the most significant and match-defining decisions available to a match official. Whether that reflects VAR functioning as intended, or evidence of the technology drifting toward an overly forensic standard that risks losing the trust of players, pundits and supporters alike, remains very much an open and unresolved question in Scottish football.
