There’s a big difference between “that feels harsh” and “that’s against the rules”. Rangers fans have seen enough flashpoints to know the gap can be massive, and this one sits right in it. On the face of it, it looks like a proper contest for the ball. But if you take the laws as they’re written and, more importantly, the way officials are told to apply them, you can see why the referee landed where he did.

What the law actually protects

The key bit in all of this is the guidance around contact that affects a goalkeeper’s ability to save or challenge for the ball. It’s not always about intent. It’s about impact. If an attacker’s arm makes contact with the keeper’s arms and that contact clearly stops the keeper getting to the ball properly, officials are pushed towards calling it a foul.

That’s why you’ll often hear folk saying “he didn’t mean it” and the referee still blows. The laws aren’t written to judge what was in a player’s head. They’re written to judge what happened, and whether it prevented a fair attempt on the ball, especially in the goalkeeper’s space where safety and control are treated differently.

Simultaneous challenge… but not equal roles

Plenty of supporters will point out, fairly enough, that both players go up with their arms raised. In real time it can look like two bodies colliding in a totally normal aerial contest. And the laws do allow a fair challenge where attacker and keeper are involved in similar actions and the play can be allowed to continue.

But here’s the awkward bit: the goalkeeper is allowed to play the ball with hand and arm in that moment. The attacker isn’t. So when arms and hands get tangled, even if both have them up, the goalkeeper’s “right” to use their hands tends to carry weight in the referee’s interpretation.

Why an apology doesn’t make sense

This is where the conversation always goes a bit off the rails. Fans, pundits, ex-players, ex-refs, your mate down the pub, everybody has an opinion. And we’ve all watched incidents where officials later admit they got it wrong.

But if the decision sits comfortably within the current guidance of Law 12, what exactly would Willie Collum be apologising for? An interpretation that matches what referees are being coached to give? You can disagree with the interpretation. You can argue the attacker was clearly only focused on the ball. I can see that argument myself. But an apology would suggest the call was outside the laws, and that’s the bit that’s harder to back up.

Truth is, we’re left with a decision that can be unpopular without being “a howler”. And that’s why it winds people up even more.

Written by Angus1812: 13 January 2026

Tags: squad