The SFA’s weekly Key Match Incident (KMI) panel has delivered its verdict on three pivotal VAR decisions during Dundee United’s 1-1 draw with Kilmarnock last weekend.
Danny Armstrong’s high tackle on Tangerines midfielder Vicko Sevelj and United’s penalty claim after Killie keeper Kieran O’Hara collided with Sam Dalby went under the microscope this week.
The five-person panel also weighed up the last-gasp penalty award to Kilmarnock after Richard Odada made contact with Bobby Wales in the box.
VAR Alan Muir urged referee Steven McLean to attend the monitor and, following a second look, the on-field official pointed to the spot. Bruce Anderson made no mistake from 12 yards to seal a point for Derek McInnes’ men.
Courier Sport revealed this week that United chiefs held talks with SFA head of refereeing Willie Collum regarding the tackle on Sevelj and, more particularly, the merits of the KMI panel; in terms of its timing.
Nevertheless, another batch of judgements were released on Friday afternoon.
Danny Armstrong’s high tackle on Vicko Sevelj is not recommended for a VAR review: CORRECT (5-0)
Just for context, given Jim Goodwin made reference to a tackle on Vicko Sevelj in his post-match quotes – but it hasn't made any of the highlights. pic.twitter.com/YZX67awwLp
— Alan Temple (@alanftemple) December 7, 2024
The panel unanimously declared that Armstrong’s challenge on Sevelj should not have been a red card, with the notes simply reading: “The on-field decision was unanimously supported.”
Kieran O’Hara makes contact with Sam Dalby in the box but the incident is not recommended for a VAR review: CORRECT (5-0)
The officials were also firmly backed in their assessment that O’Hara’s challenge on Dalby was not a spot-kick. That incident was given a difficulty rating of 1, which indicates “a simple decision that all officials should get correct.”
Penalty awarded following a VAR review of Richard Odada’s challenge on Bobby Wales: CORRECT (4-1)
There was only one dissenting voice on the decision to award Kille a 92nd-minute spot-kick.
The judgement read: “The panel discussed this decision at length with the majority (4:1) deeming the onfield decision incorrect.
“The majority (4:1) believed VAR was correct to intervene and recommend a review for a penalty kick. One panelist believed that the on-field decision was correct and VAR was incorrect to intervene.”
Conversation