28 Feb 2026 10:02:15
Im reading the KMI panel all agreed the Livi player should have been sent off. The ref should have been sent to the moniter for a review as the palyer denied MM a goal scoring opertunity.
It was as clear as day at the time and anyone who say different doesn't understand the rules/very incompetant or biased can't be any other reason. I will go for all of the above.
28 Feb 2026 10:51:12
Some fans said it was inside the box when it was clearly outside. Does that mean they don't know the rules of the game?
28 Feb 2026 11:08:33
No, these fans know the rules. Inside the box is a pen; however, it was clearly outside the box. Once the correct camera angles were seen, everyone who thought it was a pen changed their mind. That had nothing to do with the rules; that was just the initial thought before all camera angles were seen. That's all.
28 Feb 2026 11:08:44
Knew this would happen.
Surprises me the number of fans who come on and deny what is blatantly obvious at the time.
Almost like they're so worried about being labeled 'tin foil hat wearers', they'll side with the on field decision no matter how ridiculous (Shankland hand ball, Cerny pen in cup against Celtic etc.).
Not the first time that's happened. Far from it. Rohl knew it was a clear foul then as well.
28 Feb 2026 11:24:48
Clearly, outside is a stretch. I think it was outside, and I wouldn't push for the penalty, but it wasn't clear-cut in my opinion.
28 Feb 2026 11:33:01
We are the foul was obvious to all, just the place was debatable.
28 Feb 2026 11:37:19
The goal-scoring opportunity was nailed on. He was pulling his right leg back to let fly.
28 Feb 2026 11:43:04
It's a bit of both. The ref should have seen the initial foul but didn't. The cameras showed the first contact was just outside the box, and it looks like the people doing VAR were wrapped up around this, then not looking, or not wanting to look, at the last-man thing, as they would have been down to 9, and this could have influenced the decision to move on with play without further action.
Past incidents, at not just us, have shown that the VAR people are totally inept, so no change there. We get more wrong than right up here, so on that basis I would like the clubs to vote to get rid of it if they can.
28 Feb 2026 11:43:37
There were people on here a day later saying it was a penalty, so nothing to do with camera angles.
28 Feb 2026 11:58:36
Dado, it was 100% clear-cut, it was outside the box, mate.
28 Feb 2026 12:38:23
A fraction of an inch from Moore's boot on the line was a stretch outside, cool.
28 Feb 2026 12:48:46
But the decision is subjective. Could a Livingstone defender, in close proximity, have covered the yard to get a block on it? The shot was from the edge of the box, where only 3-4% of shots end up as goals. The referee has to decide if it was a 'clear' opportunity, i.e.
almost certain. So the ref on the day thought that wasn't the case.
KMI of ex players and manager, who don't know the rules, think differently. Too late now anyway, but to question competence over a difference of view is a bit much, imo.
28 Feb 2026 13:02:17
Decision is not subjective in this case, though; all parameters are fulfilled for MM according to IFAB rules below. This is the reason the panel agreed there was a mistake. Nothing is subjective in this case, and camera angles were available to the officials. Outside the box 100%, clear foul 100%, denying a goal-scoring opportunity 100%. VAR review 100%, foul and red card 100%.
Mistake 100%.
IFAB criteria for goal-scoring opportunity:
Distance: The offence is close to the goal. CHECK.
Direction: The general path of play is toward the goal. CHECK.
Control: The attacker has control of the ball or is highly likely to gain or keep control. CHECK.
Defenders: There are no, or only one, defender (other than the goalkeeper) between the attacker and the goal. CHECK.
28 Feb 2026 13:17:20
Whether fans know the rules or do not is irrelevant, it's whether the officials know the rules that is important. I've seen some angles where it looks in, and some where it looks outside the box, so it wasn't clear either way. But if they decide it's outside, then what is clear is that Moore was in the act of shooting, so it's a goal-scoring opportunity and a direct free kick and a red card.
It's also damning that the ref didn't even give a foul, which casts major doubts on his competence to referee top-level matches.
28 Feb 2026 13:18:03
My take on it was it wasn't a pen, but I didn't think it was a red card, although the ref should've given a free kick at the time.
28 Feb 2026 13:32:46
The facts you cite that only 3-4% end as goals are irrelevant; it was a goal-scoring opportunity. The fact players don't score is not for the ref to judge.
28 Feb 2026 13:40:51
Tjb, of course, it is subjective because it requires the referee to interpret the "probability" of a future event rather than just the "fact" of a past action. While laws exist to guide this decision, the interpretation of what makes an opportunity "obvious" depends on a referee's judgment of several criteria in real time; those 4 Ds you mention.
The tackle occurred at the very edge of the penalty area. While close to the goal, officials must decide if the player has already reached a point where a goal is "obvious," or if there is still significant work to do.
Defenders (Number and Location): This is often the most contested "D." Officials may have considered the positioning of other Livingston defenders as potentially capable of intervening before a shot could be taken. That is all a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective.
Not saying it wasn't an obvious DOGSO; just saying there were potentially reasons why the match day officials thought it wasn't, and why that may differ from the KMI panel.
28 Feb 2026 14:11:05
VAR ruled a foul was committed.
VAR then ruled the foul was committed outside the box, so no penalty.
The referee had, in real time, made a mistake not awarding what was a clear and obvious foul.
On the re-run, it looks like the last-ditch foul had stopped Moore getting his shot away, which is reasonable within the rules (a clear and obvious opportunity).
Surely, at that point, after 3 minutes of deliberation from VAR, they should ask the referee to go to his monitor and decide if his on-field decision was correct regarding a red card offence and a direct free kick.
My argument is that when a goal is scored, VAR is happy to re-referee the phase of play leading up to the goal in order to find a way to disallow the goal.
It may be a change in the rules required, but for me, as soon as VAR gets involved, they should award the correct decision in their view regarding that phase of play.
Clearly, that did not happen on this occasion.
28 Feb 2026 14:37:40
It was subjective, though, so Angus is right. ? How hard is it to understand? I don't think people know the difference between a factual decision and a subjective one, but, hey, there you go.
It also wasn't a fraction of an inch, as long as you have eyes. ?
28 Feb 2026 14:39:01
They should have CO2, and that's why I said it was a bit of both: not getting calls right, ref and VAR.
Get your point in a way, Angus, about being subjective, but how many decisions is that now over a season that the committee is saying mistakes have been made? In most, if not all, occasions it isn't due to the ref being subjective, but more the people controlling VAR not following all the protocols, and that's why it's there to assist when it's not picked up in real time.
The ref can be subjective, sure, but not the VAR panel, and if there is doubt in the panel following protocols, then they shouldn't be there, or there is a strong argument to get rid.
28 Feb 2026 14:39:17
Go to sightings page, and you will see it wasn't a fraction of an inch. It was at least a yard and a half where initial contact happened, which is the foul. ?
28 Feb 2026 14:40:48
I hear you, Storm, but honestly 100% clear cut is at the halfway line. I'm not pushing for the penalty, and I agree, I don't think it was, but I'm sure we'll have clearer examples this season.
28 Feb 2026 15:06:10
Storm, you are right. It was outside, and I am glad at least someone gets the subjectivity.
Rosevale, it is the subjectivity of it which means it happens all the time. Also the fact it is a group of ex-players and coaches who don't understand the current laws, perhaps. But I can see why letting a separate group of 3 people look at it again and give their opinion on it can reach potentially different opinions in that group.
That is all the KMI is giving - a set of different opinions on it.
This is not about whether we think it is a red card or not, btw; just a rationale on why the referee reached a different one.
28 Feb 2026 15:15:02
Will throw another one in. The foul continued into the penalty box. In today's rules, is that not a penalty?
28 Feb 2026 15:31:57
Angus,
Correct me if you think I'm wrong.
The subjective element is whether a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity had been stopped by the foul outside the box.
The referee didn't award a foul; therefore, given the information, the decision was reached after 3 minutes' deliberation.
My view is that having the opportunity to watch it again on the monitor would have been the better option, and most likely would have led to a more satisfactory outcome.
My view is a red card and a direct free kick, which very likely wouldn't have changed the final result given the little time remaining.
28 Feb 2026 16:27:29
Yes, Bar72, and why we should have had pen for foul on Cerny in cup.
28 Feb 2026 16:29:37
Here is hoping that VAR is not called upon in tomorrow's game.
28 Feb 2026 16:57:40
It's open to opinion, and I do get your point, Angus.
Would like to add in response to you saying there are three in the VAR studio, that was correct, but I'm sure there is a main person with two assisting, so ultimately that person has the call.
The thing that I keep picking up from the committee is that protocol has not been carried out by VAR, and that's concerning.
Overall, and without scrutinising separate decisions, I would say the standard of VAR up here is pretty poor, and I don't know how other posters think, but for me we would be better going back to the way it was.
28 Feb 2026 17:26:17
Bar, no, you are wrong to throw it, because with the tackle its initial contact is the foul. That is the rule.
Mvg, the rules for a tackle and a pull are different, the same way a push and a pull are different.
The only one that continues inside the box is Cerny. It's not hard to find out the rules, and it has already been explained on many forums and many phone-ins.
28 Feb 2026 17:27:32
Rosevale, bar isn't the problem, it's the idiots that are using it that's the problem.
28 Feb 2026 17:42:57
Correct again, Storm, according to IFAB - if the initial contact by the "first leg" occurs outside the penalty area, that is where the foul is officially committed, even if the player falls inside the box. A trailing leg hitting the player inside the box is often deemed "incidental" or "anticipated" contact resulting from the initial foul outside, rather than a new, separate foul.
28 Feb 2026 17:52:44
Great should be scrapped. The six or seven new rules shown today are a joke.
28 Feb 2026 18:17:44
CO2, yes, if he had decided it was a DOGSO the red card and free kick would have been the decision.
VAR would have looked at inside/outside box initially, and let's say that wasn't clear, or they saw it wasn't inside, so they wouldn't give a penalty. And they can't give a free kick at that point, as that isn't part of the procedure. That is all factual and doesn't require the ref to go to the monitor.
The subjective bit - let's say where defenders are - normally would require the ref to go to the monitor, imo. However, it isn't necessary if VAR gives the referee factual information about position of defenders, etc., and says they were close enough to not make it a clear opportunity or any other element of the 4 Ds, which would have a factual part of it rather than opinion, e.g.
he was 30 metres from goal and the defender was 3 metres away and would have reached the attacker (I know that wasn't what happened, but as an example).
So, the 'not following procedure' someone mentioned could be that the ref didn't go to the monitor when that is the agreed procedure.
28 Feb 2026 19:18:21
Angus, also the ref could have told the boy in VAR what he saw, and he thinks a player is getting there also. We don't hear what the ref and VAR ref say. People are just clutching at straws.
28 Feb 2026 20:03:11
I'm assuming nobody's arguing that Moore wasn't fouled outside the box at the very minimum.
VAR didn't feel, under the current rules, they could overturn the on-field decision and award a free kick.
For me, if VAR get involved for a specific incident, they should attempt to award the correct decision regardless of the on-field decision.
Maybe rules need tweaking.
I'd rather tweak the rules than scrap VAR.
I'd also like to find a way for VAR decisions to be explained at the time by the referee as in rugby, or published directly after the match at an absolute minimum.
After 3 minutes of deliberation for any incident, the rules should be in place to at least change the on-field decision to the correct decision.
28 Feb 2026 22:15:07
CO2, as soon as it was outside the box, they can't get involved further with that decision.
I like VAR; it gets most decisions right. Without it, there are more wrong, historically. The problem is, as you say, that they are never explained. Then we get a panel of pundits and ex players to disagree with the decisions. I don't know what Collum was thinking of there, as it creates more fuss after the event.
Just come out and tell us why it was disallowed, including in this case why it wasn't a DOGSO. We will still disagree, but at least it is open and transparent.
Storm, I agree. I was going on long enough ? and didn't want to go into every scenario. I think between us we have managed to get it all out there. ?