RANGERS COULD GET POINTS BACK! 🔵🔥 POSSIBLE REMATCH LOOMS AS ST MIRREN FACE DEDUCTION! An ex-PGMOL chief has reportedly blasted the VAR decision after re-analysing the controversial Rangers vs St Mirren penalty — and the fallout could be HUGE!

Rangers may have cruised into the Scottish League Cup quarter-finals with an emphatic 5-1 victory over St Mirren, but one controversial incident from the opening stages of the match has continued to generate debate. Former PGMOL chief and ex-FIFA referee Keith Hackett has now re-examined the incident involving Nicolas Raskin inside the St Mirren penalty area. After reviewing the available footage, Hackett has been extremely critical of the decision not to award Rangers a penalty. His assessment will inevitably attract attention because of his previous experience at the highest level of refereeing. The incident occurred early in the match, when Raskin appeared to be pushed from behind as the ball was delivered into the box. Referee John Beaton did not award a penalty, while VAR also chose not to intervene. Rangers eventually produced a commanding result, but that has not stopped questions being asked about the decision. Hackett believes the incident should have resulted in a spot-kick and that VAR failed in its responsibility. His comments have now added another major voice to the controversy. ([Football Insider][1])

The decision became one of the talking points from a match in which Rangers otherwise had very little to complain about. Derek McInnes’ side produced arguably their most convincing performance of the season, scoring five times and comfortably progressing to the next round of the competition. However, the penalty appeal came before Rangers established complete control of the game. That makes the incident particularly interesting because a penalty at that stage could have changed the rhythm of the contest even further. Raskin was involved in the attacking move as the ball was sent into the penalty area. As he attempted to compete for it, a St Mirren player appeared to make contact from behind and Raskin went down. Rangers players immediately appealed for a penalty, but the referee allowed play to continue. VAR subsequently checked the incident without recommending an on-field review. Hackett has now argued that the decision was wrong. His assessment is based on the physical action he believes can clearly be seen in the replay. ([Football Insider][1])

Hackett’s criticism was particularly strong because he believes this was not an incident that could simply be dismissed as a matter of interpretation. In his assessment, the replay showed a deliberate push, with both hands appearing to make contact with Raskin. He explained that the movement of the arm was important because the arm bends and then straightens, which he regarded as evidence of a pushing action. From his perspective, that should have been enough for the VAR official to recommend that the referee take another look. The former refereeing chief was prepared to give Beaton some benefit of the doubt because the referee may not have had the best possible viewing angle. However, he was much less sympathetic towards the VAR decision. Hackett’s argument is that VAR had access to multiple replay angles and therefore had a better opportunity to identify what happened. If the on-field referee missed the incident because of his position, Hackett believes the technology should have corrected the mistake. ([Football Insider][1])

The strongest part of Hackett’s assessment was his claim that the incident represented a clear and obvious error. That phrase is particularly important because VAR is not supposed to intervene every time another viewing angle produces a slightly different interpretation. The threshold for intervention is deliberately high. Officials are expected to avoid constantly re-refereeing matches from the video room. However, Hackett believes the Raskin incident crossed that threshold. In his view, the replay showed enough evidence of a foul for VAR to act. That raises an important question about how Scottish football officials are applying the clear-and-obvious-error standard. Supporters frequently complain when VAR becomes too involved, but they can also become frustrated when an incident that appears obvious from television replays is not corrected. Rangers supporters will certainly feel that tension after the St Mirren match. The club won comfortably, but the controversy remains because the question is about consistency rather than simply the final score. ([Football Insider][1])

Hackett also suggested that the referee could have been affected by his positioning. That is an important distinction because referees cannot see every incident perfectly during a live match. Players can block their view, movement can happen quickly and an incident that appears obvious on television can be much harder to judge in real time. Hackett acknowledged that possibility and was prepared to give Beaton the benefit of the doubt. However, VAR operates under completely different circumstances. The video officials can watch the incident repeatedly and from different angles. They have time to analyse the contact and determine whether the original decision should stand. That is why Hackett placed most of his criticism on VAR rather than the referee himself. If the referee genuinely could not see the push clearly, the technology should have provided assistance. Instead, VAR allowed the original decision to stand. That is the aspect of the incident that Hackett believes needs greater scrutiny. ([Football Insider][1])

The controversy is also interesting because it comes at a time when Scottish refereeing has already been under considerable scrutiny. VAR decisions have become a regular source of debate among supporters, players and managers. Every weekend brings arguments about penalties, handballs, offsides and challenges inside the box. The introduction of technology was supposed to reduce major mistakes, but it has also created a new layer of controversy. Supporters now analyse decisions frame by frame and question why one incident receives an intervention while another does not. The Raskin situation fits directly into that wider debate. Rangers fans will inevitably compare it with other penalties awarded or rejected in Scottish football. St Mirren supporters, meanwhile, may view the incident differently and argue that the contact was not sufficient to justify a penalty. That difference of opinion is exactly why VAR decisions can become so contentious.

Rangers’ emphatic victory does, however, change the significance of the decision from a match-result perspective. Had the game ended 1-0 or 2-1, the penalty controversy would probably have been discussed even more intensely. Because Rangers eventually scored five goals, it is impossible to argue that the decision determined the outcome. The Gers were clearly the better side and progressed comfortably. Nevertheless, that does not mean the incident should simply be ignored. Refereeing standards are judged independently of the eventual scoreline. A wrong decision remains a wrong decision even when the affected team wins by a large margin. That appears to be Hackett’s position. He is not suggesting that the penalty would have changed the winner. Instead, he is questioning why VAR failed to intervene when he believes the evidence showed a clear foul. ([Football Insider][1])

The timing of the incident also matters because Rangers were still establishing their authority in the match. A penalty could have given them an early opportunity to take the lead and potentially forced St Mirren into a different tactical approach. Instead, the game continued before Rangers eventually found their rhythm and took control. The eventual 5-1 scoreline showed that McInnes’ side did not need the penalty to win. But supporters will still wonder whether the decision should have gone their way. These are precisely the moments that VAR was introduced to examine. When a player appears to be pushed inside the penalty area, the expectation is that officials will carefully assess whether the contact meets the threshold for a foul. Hackett believes that assessment did not happen correctly in this case.

For McInnes, the bigger positive from the match was undoubtedly the performance. The Rangers manager had been under pressure after a difficult start to his reign, including a disappointing European exit and a run of results that left supporters demanding improvement. The victory over St Mirren offered a significant response. Rangers attacked with confidence, created opportunities and eventually overwhelmed their opponents. It was the type of performance that McInnes will hope can become a foundation for the rest of the season. The penalty controversy is therefore secondary to the result, but it remains an important talking point because it provides another example of the challenges facing Scottish refereeing. McInnes will likely be more concerned with maintaining the level of performance his players produced than with an incident that ultimately had no impact on the final result.

Raskin’s involvement makes the situation particularly notable. The midfielder has become an important figure within the Rangers squad, and his energy and ability to contribute in midfield make him a player opponents have to monitor closely. The incident showed him making an attacking run into the box, exactly the type of movement Rangers want from midfielders. If he was genuinely pushed from behind, then the failure to award a penalty could be viewed as a missed opportunity. Rangers have been trying to improve their attacking output, and creating more situations where midfielders enter the penalty area could become a key part of their approach. The more frequently players like Raskin make those runs, the more important it becomes for officials to judge challenges consistently.

The incident also highlights the complicated relationship between referees and VAR officials. VAR is designed to support the referee, not replace him. The final responsibility for the decision remains with the match officials, but VAR can recommend a review when an error reaches the required threshold. Hackett’s criticism suggests that the support mechanism failed. He believes the referee may have had a reasonable explanation for missing the incident but that there was no satisfactory explanation for VAR failing to identify the alleged push. That distinction could fuel further debate about the training and decision-making process of VAR officials. Are they being too cautious? Are they interpreting the clear-and-obvious threshold too narrowly? Or did they simply judge the contact differently from Hackett? Those are questions that supporters will continue to ask.

There is also the issue of consistency. Football fans can accept difficult decisions more easily when they believe the same standard is being applied across matches. Problems arise when similar incidents appear to receive different outcomes. Rangers supporters have experienced controversial penalty decisions before, including another St Mirren incident earlier in the year involving a handball appeal. That previous controversy involved Nicolas Raskin’s header striking Alex Gogic’s hand, with Rangers appeals rejected. Former top-flight referees subsequently discussed that decision and whether Rangers had been unlucky not to receive a penalty. ([The Scottish Sun][2]) The latest Raskin incident therefore adds another chapter to an ongoing discussion about penalty decisions involving Rangers.

Interestingly, Hackett has previously been involved in another Rangers VAR controversy this month, although his conclusion in that case went in the opposite direction. After initially questioning the decision to award Hibernian a penalty against Rangers, he later reviewed the footage more closely and admitted that referee Don Robertson and VAR had been correct. Hackett said he had changed his mind after looking at the incident on a big screen and praised the Scottish refereeing leadership for taking a firmer stance on grappling in penalty areas. ([Football Insider][3]) That earlier reversal makes his latest comments particularly noteworthy. It demonstrates that his assessment is not automatically favourable to Rangers. He has shown that he is willing to change his opinion after reviewing footage. In the St Mirren case, however, his conclusion is firmly that Rangers should have received a penalty.

That consistency in his own approach gives his latest criticism additional weight, even though his opinion is not itself an official ruling. Hackett is analysing the incident from the perspective of his refereeing experience. His interpretation is that the physical action crossed the line into a foul. Other refereeing experts or officials could potentially interpret the same contact differently. That is the nature of football officiating. Even with multiple replay angles, there can be disagreement about whether contact is sufficient to warrant a penalty. The important point is that Hackett believes the evidence was strong enough to justify VAR intervention. His criticism is therefore directed not simply at the original decision but at the failure to review it on the field. ([Football Insider][1])

Rangers fans will undoubtedly use the comments as evidence that their concerns were justified. Supporters often feel that their team does not receive the benefit of close decisions, particularly when VAR becomes involved. Having a former PGMOL chief publicly state that Rangers should have received a penalty gives those supporters another reason to question the process. At the same time, it is important not to allow the controversy to overshadow what was an excellent Rangers performance. The club did not require the penalty to win. They scored five times and demonstrated enough attacking quality to overcome St Mirren comfortably. The bigger lesson for McInnes should be that his team are capable of producing performances of that standard.

For St Mirren, the incident will naturally be viewed differently. From their perspective, the most important fact is that the referee did not award the penalty and VAR did not overturn the decision. Their players will have wanted to defend strongly and avoid conceding an early goal. A penalty would have placed them under immediate pressure, and the match might have developed differently. But once Rangers took control, St Mirren struggled to contain them. The final scoreline means there is little reason for them to focus exclusively on the penalty incident. Their attention will instead turn towards how they can respond to such a heavy defeat.

The controversy nevertheless raises questions that extend beyond one match. If VAR officials are going to intervene only when an error is considered clear and obvious, there needs to be a consistent understanding of what that phrase means. Supporters cannot reasonably expect every foul to be overturned by VAR. Football would become too slow and every physical challenge would be examined repeatedly. But when an experienced former referee looks at an incident and believes a clear push has been missed, the question becomes whether the intervention threshold has been set too high. That is the balance Scottish football continues to wrestle with.

Hackett’s comments also provide an interesting reminder that technology cannot eliminate controversy. VAR can provide more information, but humans still have to interpret that information. Different officials can look at the same replay and reach different conclusions. That is why the introduction of VAR has not ended arguments about refereeing. Instead, it has changed the nature of those arguments. Supporters now ask why the officials did not intervene, why a particular camera angle was used or why an incident was considered insufficient for a review. The Raskin incident is another example of that reality.

For Rangers, however, the priority should remain on the positives. A 5-1 win against St Mirren represents a significant improvement in performance and provides McInnes with momentum. The manager needs his players to build on that result rather than become distracted by refereeing controversies. If Rangers can consistently produce the intensity and attacking quality they showed in the cup victory, they will have a much better chance of competing for silverware. The penalty controversy may remain a talking point among supporters, but it should not become the defining story of the match.

Nevertheless, the words of a former PGMOL chief are difficult to ignore. Hackett did not simply suggest that Rangers might have been unlucky. He went considerably further, arguing that VAR should have intervened and that the decision represented a clear and obvious error. He also criticised the failure to act despite the availability of replay footage. Those are strong comments from someone with significant experience in refereeing. ([Football Insider][1])

The debate will probably continue for some time. Rangers supporters will point to the replay and agree with Hackett, while others may argue that the contact was not enough to warrant a penalty. Refereeing authorities may ultimately have their own interpretation of the incident. But the controversy has already achieved one thing: it has placed another spotlight on VAR in Scottish football. The technology was introduced to improve decision-making, yet every disputed incident raises questions about how effectively it is being used.

For Raskin, the best response is simply to continue performing. His movement into the penalty area helped create the situation in the first place, and Rangers will need more of that attacking ambition from him. If he continues making dangerous runs, there will inevitably be more challenges inside opposition penalty areas. The hope for Rangers will be that future decisions go in their favour when genuine fouls occur. For the club, the objective is to create enough chances that individual refereeing decisions do not determine matches.

Ultimately, Rangers left Ibrox with exactly what they wanted: a place in the Scottish League Cup quarter-finals and a huge confidence boost after a difficult start to the campaign. The 5-1 victory demonstrated that McInnes’ team are capable of producing convincing football. But the Raskin penalty appeal has added another controversial chapter to the season. With Keith Hackett now stating that VAR should have intervened, the debate over Scottish officiating is unlikely to disappear. ([Football Insider][1])

The incident may not have changed the result, but it has certainly changed the conversation around the match. Rangers supporters now have the backing of a former senior refereeing official who believes their team should have been awarded a penalty. Whether the authorities agree is another matter. What cannot be disputed is that VAR remains under intense scrutiny, and incidents like this will continue to test the credibility of the system. Rangers will hope their performances can speak louder than the controversies, but after Hackett’s latest assessment, the Raskin penalty decision is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon