Report: Celtic demand SFA explanation over VAR decision at Motherwell
Celtic are asking the SFA for clarification on the decision to disallow a ‘goal’ from Jota away to Motherwell last night.
With the hoops leading 1-0 from an early Kyogo Furuhashi goal it looked like they had doubled the lead when Jota netted in the 59th minute although the assistant referee flagged once the ball was in the net.
After a brief pause for VAR David Dickinson to review the incident through Hawkeye the game restarted with a free kick to Motherwell.
It was a marginal call but further confusion was created when the broadcaster released a VAR decision image taken 50 yards from the incident when closer cameras should have been available.
Just before 7pm tonight, David Friel of The Sun reported:
CELTIC are set to seek SFA clarification over Jota’s controversial offside goal against Motherwell.
SunSport understands Parkhead chiefs have been left bemused at the VAR angle used for that decision at Fir Park on Wednesday night.
Jota was ruled to be offside after racing on to Kyogo Furuhashi’s pass – but the offside image used to show the VAR lines came from the CELTIC half.
SunSport understands the VAR officials are 100 per cent certain Jota WAS offside – with the lines calbrated via the technology.
Motherwell chief executive Alan Burrows has confirmed on social media that cameras on BOTH 18-yard lines at Fir Park were operational.
But Celtic are now seeking answers as to why there was no image from the Motherwell half circulated via the broadcasting feed.
Should Celtic publish the reply from the SFA over the Jota VAR decision?
Friel, a former Celtic View reporter, has a long track record of being close to the action at Celtic Park.
In February 2021 he broke exclusive news that Neil Lennon had resigned- 10 hours before the announcement to the Stock Market.
Following a controversial Scottish Cup semi-final against Inverness Caley Thistle in 2015 Celtic contacted the SFA for clarification on the decision not to award a penalty against Josh Meekings. Peter Lawwell never followed up the matter with no explanation ever surfacing.