Willie Collum reviews three Hearts and Hibs VAR decisions including key derby call and one that enraged boss

Head of Referees Willie Collum has pulled the curtain back on three VAR decisions during Hearts and Hibs matches - including the Edinburgh derby

Fans, managers and pundits alike have put refereeing performance firmly under the microscope amid some wrong decisions this term. A missed penalty for Rangers in the League Cup final sparked national debate but that’s not the only wrong call this term.

Dan Casey’s red card for violent conduct in Motherwell’s draw with Kilmarnock also went viral and was eventually overturned. Hearts and Hibs games have been impacted too and Collum has reviewed three separate incidents as part of the VAR review show.

Included in it is the decision to award a key goal for Hibs in the Edinburgh derby, and two debated penalties.

Hearts vs Hibs (Rocky Bushiri offside)

Originally in the 2-1 win for David Gray’s side at Tynecastle, their opener was chopped off as Rocky Bushiri was deemed to be in an offside position with Kye Rowles putting it in his own net. This was overturned an awarded as a clean strike.

Collum said: “We're talking here about the Hibs attacker being really close to the Hearts goalkeeper, really line of vision, or impacting his ability to play the ball. You can understand why the on-field officials are unsure, because it happened so quick. We've worked hard in the last few weeks to talk about early communication. The assistant referee should identify where the Hibs player is early to alert the referee, so that he then is tuned into that, and can get a focus on that immediately. But the VAR go through a very good process here, and so does the referee when he comes to the monitor.

“We need to bring the referee to the monitor here because it's subjective. Everybody can tell he's offside but it's up to the referee, the on-field official, to make a judgment whether he thinks he's in the line of vision, or else impeding the ability of the goalkeeper to play the ball there. So when he comes to the monitor, they've reached the right decision, he doesn't just dismiss it though immediately. He quickly goes to different angles, also asks the VAR to pause, this is what we want to see at the monitor, and make sure we get the right decision.

“But when you look at this incident on the point of pause, it's absolutely clear that the Hibs attacker is not in any way impacting on the Hearts goalkeeper, so ultimately this is a correct decision. This is subjective in the sense the referee needs to make the decision, but I want to be quite categorical about this, if the goal had been disallowed here, this would be wrong for us. This is important we get this right, there's nothing in the images when you slow everything down, when you look at the angle behind the goal, to support giving offside here.”

Ross County vs Hearts (overturned James Penrice penalty)

County defender Michael Efete was deemed to have fouled.Jambos left-back James Penrice in the box during a 2-2 draw between the clubs. After a VAR review, this was overturned, but the Key Match Incident panel concluded it should have been a spot-kick. Collum disagrees with this stance.

He said: “Let's go back to the League Cup final and it was a shirt pull that continued into the penalty area. Shirt pulling is the only offence you can punish at its end point. So if it starts outside the box but continues inside you punish it, but a tackle or an arm offence like we see here, it's where the initial contact takes place. You can clearly see in the footage, when paused and slowed down, the initial contact for the foul, what the referee regards as a foul, is outside the box.

“So the VAR is correct to then say this is factually incorrect. But the big question here, and a lot of people talked about this decision at the time, why then did we bring the referee to the monitor? Why did we come to the monitor at that point? The reason the referee is brought to the monitor is because there is almost another bit of contact with the arm again, but for us it's not punishable. It's important the referee gets a chance to see that and that he's then able to make a decision.

“The initial contact clearly outside, but is there a secondary movement when the players then go in the box? So that's why we covered it here, because there's that other bit of contact, but for us clearly not punishable. But we need to go back to the very beginning to think, if this offence is the arm offence, and the arm offence only, it's where the contact starts.

“I go back to the benefits of the KMI panel. We're learning every week in the KMI panel. Where I don't agree with the KMI panel here, is the KMI panel did feel it was a penalty but they felt as the players went into the penalty area there was a tangle of the legs. So they were more looking at a foul, at lower body, whereas we don't think there's anything punishable there. Just the same as we don't think any contact, secondary contact, in the box, upper body, is punishable.”

Hibs vs Rangers (Josh Campbell penalty)

During the pulsating 3-3 draw between Hibs and Rangers, Josh Campbell was brought down in the box by Ianis Hagi. Ibrox boss Philippe Clement hit out and said “it’s never a penalty, it's from both sides a collision and nothing more, you can give it two ways so you don't give a penalty in that situation."

Collum, however, backs the call. He said: “There are loads of elements in this decision to consider. A variety of camera angles as well. The referee is well positioned. He's very decisive on the field. He gives a clear explanation to the VAR. This is a very subjective decision. If you look at this you could give reasons why it's a penalty. The upper body contact coming in. The Hibs player's ahead at that point. The Rangers player doesn't touch a ball.

“Then if you look at the ground level, was there contact for the Hibs player onto the Rangers player? Is that caused by the upper body contact? There's loads of different things to consider here. What we would say, it’s subjective. Referee awards a penalty here. There's nothing to bring the referee to the monitor here to overturn that. If the referee decided to play on here, there's also elements to support that decision. So for us this is very subjective where we would say regardless of the on-field decision we would support it."