George Overhill

Mon 20 March 2023 20:40, UK

Stuart Dougal has come out in defence of the officials from the Rangers win at Motherwell in the face of confusion from Richard Foster.

The home side’s first goal for Kevin van Veen and the Gers’ third for Todd Cantwell both survived suspicions of offside in the build up after VAR reviews and were allowed to stand, but the fallout has seen extension dissatisfaction from pundits, with ex-Ibrox striker Kris Boyd accusing the technology of being done “on the cheap” in Scotland [Football Scotland, 18 March].

Former Light Blues defender Foster, now the director of coaching at Fir Park, wasn’t convinced by the offside decisions, but former SPFL referee Dougal has backed the fact that there was consistency between both decisions with the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker.

Dougal said on BBC Sport’s The VARdict, as per Football Scotland: “The lines are very, very close. As has been highlighted elsewhere, Motherwell don’t have a camera right along the line there.

“These lines are calibrated before the game like Hawkeye in tennis. We’ve got to go with the technology and it can’t clearly say that the Rangers player was offside because it’s as it’s close as you are saying.

“The laws of the game (say) any doubt then you favour the attacking team. Motherwell benefitted in the first half and Rangers benefited in the second half.

“It’s the same assistant referee and I’d say it’s consistency. VAR had a look at both of them and both of them were allowed to stand.”

Foster responded: “So regardless of what line is ahead, if they are touching – it doesn’t matter?”

“That would be up to the VAR officials,” said Dougal before Foster interjected: “To the naked eye, he looks offside to me.”

Dougal replied: “Well I’m not surprised. I think it’s too close to call. If it’s too close to call then you favour the attacking team.

“Let’s get balance here and Motherwell got one in the first half. With the naked eye, twice he’s (assistant referee) allowed play to continue, VAR has looked at them and said you’ve got it right.”

Storm in a teacup

If it is proven that the technology used in Scotland actually doesn’t work then that would not be a satisfactory situation, but unless or until that happens then simply being suspicious of decisions isn’t helpful.

The fact that the TV cameras at Fir Park are at an angle which made it look like Max Johnston and Fashion Sakala were ahead of the last defender haven’t helped because the angles look impossible to the naked eye.

But that is the entire point of using VAR for offsides because the naked eye coming from an unhelpful angle, whether that be the assistant referee or anyone else, can’t get everything right.

It is impossible to escape the fact that officials make bizarre decisions a lot of the time, and video technology often gives them extra opportunities to do so.

But in this case the two goals were borderline and both stood, which is so often what detractors of VAR want when goals are disallowed because a toe too far forward is deemed an infringement, it seems pointless to be upset about.

Dougal is right that at least there was consistency at Fir Park on Saturday (18 March), and both sides benefited equally, so while there are endless sticks available to beat refereeing decisions with it doesn’t seem like these should be used for that.

In other Rangers news, a BBC Sportscene pundit insisted he wasn’t showing bias to Motherwell with his furious reaction to one Bears player.