MOTHERWELL manager Stuart Kettlewell says a lengthy VAR delay was worth it to see a penalty awarded against his side overturned, as he insisted the officiating team got the call to reverse their decision spot on.
Ross County boss Malky Mackay was furious with two VAR decisions that went against his side, but while opposite number Kettlewell agreed that the decision-making process needs ironed out, he believed that ultimately referee Euan Anderson ultimately called both penalty incidents correctly.
In fact, he thought Motherwell should have had a spot-kick earlier in the match for a County handball that was missed by VAR.
“I’m delighted they took the time over the Calum Butcher one because it’s absolutely brilliant defending, he gets a touch on the ball and you can see it change direction,” Kettlewell said. “So, correct call.
“Then the bit that comes at the end. I think it comes off the hand of (Dylan) Smith and then another defender in the lead-up to our penalty.
“I was frustrated in the first half [with the other handball] because I’ve seen them given as penalties constantly. Then it comes in the second half, whether it’s a slice of luck or the correct decision then I don’t think any of us know.
“But generally, if it’s heading towards goal or there’s a clear opportunity and it comes off a hand then it seems to be a penalty, and I thought we missed one in the first half and got the one at the end, which I thought the players deserved.
“I’m not trying to use it as a stick to beat anyone over the head. I think there has been a level of inconsistency. I’m a little confused when I saw it at half time, I felt 100 per cent Dan Casey’s [shot] is a situation I’ve seen given as a penalty. Then the one at the end of the game to the naked eye I don’t know if anyone sees it, but when you watch it back you see it come off the hand.
“It’s a tough gig. The guys in VAR HQ and on the pitch - I know they are trying to be fair and honest. It’s just such a difficult decision-making process that I think needs capped with ‘we are doing this and we are sticking with it and not wavering’.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here