Celtic’s League Cup triumph over Rangers has sparked controversy surrounding a contentious moment during the Hampden final and the performance of referee John Beaton.
The gripping contest ended in a 3-3 draw after 120 minutes before Celtic prevailed 4-2 in the penalty shootout. Daizen Maeda delivered the decisive spot-kick, cementing Celtic’s victory and securing the trophy’s return to Parkhead.
Yet, some believe the result could have been different if Beaton had acted on what has been described as a “clear and obvious error.”
That claim comes from former Scottish Football Association referees Steve Conroy and Des Roache.
The pair have pointed to an incident involving Celtic defender Liam Scales and Rangers forward Vaclav Cerny, arguing Rangers were denied a penalty that could have changed the outcome of the match.
Through their X account, The Ref’s View, Conroy and Roache commented:
“This is what VAR is for.
“The foul is on the 18-yard line, therefore in the penalty area, therefore it is a penalty.
“The officials had a fairly decent game until this point but it is a clear and obvious error that went unnoticed.”
The debate centres on Scales’ apparent foul on Cerny, where Rangers manager Philippe Clement felt aggrieved by the lack of action.
However, questions arose over when Beaton blew his whistle and whether the initial contact outside the box nullified the shirt tug inside it.
Addressing these concerns, The Ref’s View initially stated:
“Don’t know when he blew his whistle. It doesn’t matter if there’s a foul before the tug. The Ref can allow an advantage for simple fouls. IFAB allows for the foul to be given in the area if it continues into the area. It is undeniably a penalty.”
The comments prompted backlash from Celtic supporters, one of whom argued that the timing of Beaton’s whistle did indeed matter.
In response, the ex-refs clarified, “Sorry I wasn’t clear on the first point. I said I didn’t know when he blew. Hope that clears up any confusion caused.”
The back-and-forth highlights a lack of consensus even among former officials, raising doubts over the assertion that the incident was “undeniably” a penalty.
If retired referees can’t agree on the rules, how can on-field officials be expected to make such calls under intense pressure?
This episode underscores the ongoing challenges of officiating in high-stakes matches, where even the benefit of VAR can’t eliminate every element of doubt.
