‘Cheated Celtic on Purpose?’ Referee Georgi Kabakov and the Callum Osmand Penalty Row

The question hanging over Celtic Park this week is a blunt one: was Celtic cheated? Nobody has produced evidence that referee Georgi Kabakov did anything deliberately wrong, but the Osmand incident has become the defining talking point of a frustrating night against Celta Vigo.

Celtic’s Europa League hopes took another blow as Celta Vigo came from behind to inflict their third straight defeat in the competition. Yet the argument afterwards was less about the scoreline than about a moment in the first half. Callum Osmand went down in the area under contact from Javi Rueda, but Kabakov waved play on, and the VAR team based in Germany opted not to intervene. Sky’s report places the contact just outside the box, with the referee deciding not to award a free-kick. (Celtic 1-2 Celta Vigo: Hoops suffer third Europa League defeat as Spaniards stun with quick double +2)

That last detail is what bothers people most. Even if you accept the contact happened outside the area, it was still a foul, and a free-kick should have followed. Instead there was nothing. Neil Lennon, commentating on the night, put the dilemma simply: it had to be either a free-kick outside the box or a penalty, and he could not understand why it was neither. Stiliyan Petrov went further, suggesting the challenge could even have warranted a red card, noting that Osmand was through on goal. (britbrief)

So what has Kabakov said? As far as anything reported shows, very little. Martin O’Neill gave the only account of the referee’s reasoning, saying the referee told him VAR were checking it before adding he had no idea what there was to check, because to him it was a very obvious foul. A referee saying a decision was being reviewed is not an explanation of why the review ended in nothing, and that gap is exactly what is fuelling the anger. (britbrief)

The frustration did not end there. O’Neill also felt Camilo Duran was fouled just before the free-kick Celta equalised from, which made the night feel like a pattern. Petrov, meanwhile, questioned why UEFA had appointed Kabakov, citing the Bulgarian official’s limited experience at the top level. (britbrief)

It is worth being fair here. Referees miss incidents, and the speed of a player running into the box makes contact hard to judge in real time. VAR exists precisely to catch what the man on the pitch misses, which is why its silence is harder to excuse than a single missed call. If the review team saw a clear foul, they should have sent Kabakov to the monitor. If they judged it marginal, someone owes Celtic a proper explanation.

Calling it deliberate is a leap that the facts do not support. Incompetence, a poor angle and a cautious VAR can all produce the same result without any bad intent. But Celtic and their supporters are entitled to ask for transparency, and UEFA should be willing to say what was checked, what was seen and why nothing was given.

Until that happens, the Osmand non-decision will sit alongside the scoreline as the thing people remember. Celtic lost 2-1, and nobody can say with confidence that a fair whistle would have changed it. But a clear answer would at least let everyone move