Willie Collum responds to disallowed Hearts goal controversy as he tackles confusion and rumbling debate
A controversial Hearts incident has been assessed by the head of referees.
The Scottish FA’s head of referees, Willie Collum, has explained the thinking behind disallowing a Hearts goal in their 1-1 Premiership draw with Kilmarnock last month.
Officials from Hampden responded to the Tynecastle club’s request for clarification over the controversial incident after the Jambos asked why their first-half effort did not stand. With the game still goalless at the time, Hearts midfielder Laurent Mendy had a shot on goal that appeared to be going wide, until Kilmarnock defender Cathal McCarthy deflected the ball into his own net.
The ball struck Mendy’s arm after he jumped, which was confirmed by video replays, but McCarthy would have been the scorer were it deemed an own goal. Football laws state that the goalscorer can see a goal disallowed if an arm was used before shooting or in immediate build-up. However, Hearts believe the goal should have stood, as McCarthy would have been the own goal scorer rather than Mendy solely netting. In his latest Scottish Football VAR review, Collum has strongly backed the decision amid rumbling debate.
Willie Collum on Hearts disallowed goal vs Kilmarnock
He explained: “This decision is fully correct and I'll explain why. Let's look at the law. We spoke about it earlier, about the ball touching the hand, and then the player scores. The ball clearly touches the Hearts player's hand, so we don't need to get into a debate whether it did or not. So he then gains an advantage from that because it's a punishable part of the arm. It's down low, the arm or hand, and he then shoots at goal.
“Where people have been very confused about this decision, absolutely nowhere in law does it talk about the shot being on target, nowhere. We can come back to that. Let's talk about the defender's actions, the Kilmarnock defender. He reacts like any player would, like a goalkeeper would. This shot's coming in. He doesn't know it's hit the Hearts player's hand, so he needs to try his best to save that. It's a saving action and he's unsuccessful.
“The way if you replace him with a goalkeeper and they get a fingertip to it and it goes into the net, people would still say that goal should be disallowed. So let's not get into this debate about, you know, was it in past the post, was it on target? The ball strikes the hand, drops, player shoots, and a goal is scored. So in the laws of the game, this is correctly disallowed.
”We spoke to a few players about this, and every one of them agreed that the Kilmarnock player's actions are the actions of what any defender would do in that position, almost one metre from the goal line.”
A comparison was made by host Gordon Duncan to a Manchester United goal involving Harry Maguire earlier this season. Precedent appeared to be set for such incidents down south during Manchester United’s 5-2 win over Ipswich Town in the Premier League. Maguire’s effort appeared to strike his arm before he hit a shot that collided with defender Jacob Greaves on its way in. Referee Craig Pawson and VAR official Jarred Gillett deemed the handball an accident, so current rules stated that because Maguire did not score directly, the goal stood.
Why was Hearts goal vs Kilmarnock disallowed?
Collum responded: “The actions of the Kilmarnock defender are not controlled actions. That's a deflection or a saving action. I think the example cited from my colleagues down south, I don't like to talk about other countries' decisions, but the reality is that a player shoots, and a deflection happens, and it still ends up in the net. So in law for us, that needs to be disallowed.
“However, there's one difference, okay, before we get confused here. If you replace the Kilmarnock defender with a Hearts attacker, he would be offside, right? And if he scores, the goal would stand. The goal would stand in that scenario because it's a teammate who scored that goal. Ultimately, the Kilmarnock player's actions are just deflection and a saving action. For us here in law, this is absolutely correctly disallowed.
“It’s not a controlled action. That's similar to a goalkeeper saving a shot. What you're saying there is that if it was a goalkeeper instead of the defender, and he gets his hand to the ball, but the ball goes in, you would say it's a goalkeeper's goal. I don't even think there could be any doubt about that and I want to move away from this going wide aspect.
“It's irrelevant. The Kilmarnock player takes the action because he's trying to save a shot. It's nothing about going wide. If we're saying that goal should stand, we would be saying to every defender in the country, if you think it could be a handball but you think it could be going wide, just avoid touching it, jump out of the way. We need to be fair to defenders here as well. The key to this incident is it clearly hits a punishable part of the arm. The Hearts player shoots. The defender makes a saving action. He's unsuccessful. The goal is scored. It needs to be disallowed.”
The Scottish Football Social Club is presented by BetSBK.com | 18+ | Gamble Responsibly