Willie Collum provides verdict on three VAR calls involving Hearts and Hibs as errors admitted

Head of referees Willie Collum has provided his verdict on three calls by VAR that had Hearts and Hibs ramifications.

Both sides are enjoying good runs of form in the Premiership that has catapulted both from fears down the bottom to European contenders. In recent games, VAR has played a factor.

For Hibs, Collum has looked over two incidents. First to give a handball against Nicky Cadden and penalty to Ross County in a draw with the Highland side, while a call to the monitor for a possible Rocky Bushiri handball in victory against Aberdeen has also been assessed. No penalty was awarded despite a VAR look at it.

In the sole Hearts game being looked at on the weekly VAR review fronted by Collum, there were two infringements in a game against Kilmarnock that Neil Critchley’s side went on to win, with claims that Elton Kabangu was offside and also fouled defender Joe Wright in the build-up to his early effort.

Here is the verdict of Collum below.

Nicky Cadden handball vs Ross County

“Communication is good. The angles also are good. They don't start with a still image, what we're telling them, because you can make anything look like a handball there if you pause it. But they show a side angle to show the distance the ball travels. It does come from distance. They show the high behind, behind the goal, which is really, really important. And then we finish with a still image to get the exact point of contact and the position of the arm. There's been lots of debate about this decision. Nobody claims for it on field, nobody at all.

“Everybody's oblivious, even the match officials on field, including the referee and the assistant referee looking it across. And there's also been the point made that the ball's not going to an opponent. However, it was really clear when I spoke pre-season, particularly when I spoke to the clubs, that you can't have a rule about where the ball is going. Just because it's an unnatural position but it's not going to anybody, we ignore it. This, for us, is a clear penalty kick. The arm's extended.

“We don't have any justification for not awarding this here. And, in fact, if this had not been awarded by the referee or the VAR, we would have been coaching that that was an incorrect decision and the team of officials would be marked down. This is clear for us. The arm out for the body. It does travel a distance. I have a bit of sympathy because the ball does bounce just before it gets to the player. But the arm is still too far out from the body. And, for us, this is clearly punishable.

“There's no question about it. Again, for consistency, the arm in this position, we will continue to award a penalty kick for this.”

Alleged handball vs Rocky Bushiri

“I want to be very clear in explaining this. This is a clear challenge for the ball here. And we believe it's an error that the VAR team brought the referee to the monitor. We're really pleased with the referee coming to the monitor and saying this was natural because the player is challenging the opponent for the ball. We don't want any VAR intervention here for the on-field officials. We believe the referee called it correctly on-field. And this should not be a penalty kick under any circumstances.

“It would be very different if the player was jumping to head of the ball on his own, not challenging an opponent, and he makes that same connection with his arm to the ball. But here, this is completely natural in terms of the challenge for the ball. So, correct for us, the referee goes to the monitor and doesn't award a penalty kick. But again, for coaching purposes, we've told the VARs we don't expect any intervention here.”

Hearts goal vs Kilmarnock

“When you look back at the footage here, the VAR team go back to start to assess the incident almost just a short time before the potential foul, when the ball's in mid-air. But we don't start an attacking phase of play when the ball's in mid-air. The attacking phase of play in this incident should have started when the Hearts goalkeeper released the ball. The foul or no foul, to an extent, is irrelevant for me. I think you could argue one way or the other. Me personally, I don't think it is a foul, but some people look at it and think it is. But the reality is that this player, the attacking player, is offside from the goalkeeper's kick, and he then interferes and impacts with his opponent and also the potential of his opponent to play the ball.

“So this here should have been given as offside. We've learned a lot from this clip. Again, people be critical of me because they're saying, well, you get it wrong, but you talk about learning. But that's the only way to improve. Firstly, we don't want any APP to be set in mid-air. We need to go back, even go back a step further than you think the APP is, just to be sure where it started.

“We also expect the on-field assistant referee to make some communication here because it's obviously a very tight decision, and normally the assistant referee would say, it's tight in the build-up, or have a look. And in this case, that didn't happen. The assistant VAR is an experienced assistant referee.

“We're hoping there again there can be prompt. But as a team, as the assistant referee, the VAR and the AVAR, we need to get this right. We need to make sure we identify the offside because this doesn't come down to a subjective call or not. The free kick does about a foul or not, but this is clear in the APP. This goal should have been disallowed. What I would say, if you remove the players from the position they're in to the opposite side of the field, and the ball still comes to the same area, we're not interested.

“They're not impacting at all. That's nothing for us to be concerned about. It would be the focus on where the drop zone is, or close to that drop zone. But for here, this should be offside. There's no doubt about it.”