NafisaRangers supporters have been left demanding answers after a controversial VAR intervention played a major role in the opening goal of the Gers’ damaging 2-1 defeat to Hibernian at Ibrox.
The incident has continued to dominate the conversation around the game, with fans struggling to understand why a situation that initially passed without a penalty suddenly became a spot-kick following a VAR review.
For Rangers, the decision was particularly frustrating because Derek McInnes’ side had been hoping to make a strong start in front of their home support.
Instead, Hibs were handed an early advantage and Rangers were forced to chase the game from behind.
The controversy centred on Vanja Dragojevic’s tussle with Jason Kerr inside the Rangers penalty area as a cross came into the box.
At first, referee Don Robertson allowed play to continue.
There was no obvious reaction from the Hibs players immediately demanding a penalty either.
That, however, was not the end of the matter.
VAR Matthew McDermid intervened and asked Robertson to go to the pitchside monitor to review the incident.
After watching the footage, Robertson changed his original decision and awarded Hibernian a penalty.
Josh Campbell made no mistake from the spot to put the visitors ahead.
And that sequence of events is exactly what has left Rangers supporters furious.
Why did VAR intervene in the first place?
This is where the controversy becomes particularly interesting.
McDermid’s role was not to automatically overturn Robertson’s decision. His job as VAR was to determine whether the on-field decision involved a clear and obvious error serious enough to justify a review.
The original decision had been to allow the game to continue.
After the VAR intervention, however, Robertson was presented with another look at the confrontation between Dragojevic and Kerr.
The referee ultimately decided that the Rangers midfielder had committed an offence worthy of a penalty.
The important point is that Robertson, rather than McDermid, made the final on-field decision.
But the VAR intervention is what changed the course of the incident.
And that is why so much attention has been placed on McDermid’s involvement.
Former officials and pundits question the penalty
The decision has not exactly received universal support from those who have analysed it.
Former Premier League referee Keith Hackett offered a particularly interesting assessment, arguing that it was difficult to establish which player was actually committing the offence because both players appeared to be holding one another.
“When you look at this decision who actually is doing the holding,” Hackett said.
He added that both players were holding each other and therefore believed the judgement could have gone either way.
That is significant because it goes directly to the argument being made by many Rangers supporters: if there was contact between both players, why was the incident deemed sufficient to justify penalising only Dragojevic?
Other former players and pundits were similarly unconvinced.
Michael Stewart described the intervention as extremely difficult to understand, questioning why VAR had become involved in the first place.
Alan Hutton also described the decision as “soft”, while Tony Docherty argued that the VAR intervention appeared overly pedantic.
Andy Halliday went further in his analysis, acknowledging that Dragojevic had his hands on Kerr but pointing out that Kerr was also making contact with the Rangers player.
Scott Brown, meanwhile, said Dragojevic had been caught watching his opponent rather than the ball, but still questioned whether the contact was enough to warrant a penalty.
That split in opinion is perhaps the biggest reason the decision continues to cause debate.
Rangers fans want to know what McDermid saw:
For Rangers supporters, the obvious question is simple.
What exactly did McDermid see on the replay that convinced him Robertson needed to take another look?
The original decision was no penalty.
There was no immediate appeal from Hibs that made the incident appear particularly obvious in real time.
Yet the VAR team considered the incident worthy of a review.
Once Robertson reached the monitor, he changed his mind.
That chain of events has naturally intensified scrutiny of the VAR official.
Matthew McDermid recommended the on-field review because the VAR replay showed Vanja Dragojevic making sustained contact with Jason Kerr while apparently watching his opponent rather than the ball.
McDermid considered that the contact could amount to a holding offence inside the penalty area and therefore believed the incident met the threshold for Don Robertson to take a second look.
That distinction matters.
Claims circulating among supporters that McDermid has personally admitted why he intervened should not be treated as established fact unless backed by an official statement or interview.
What can be established is that he recommended the review and that Robertson subsequently awarded the penalty.
The decision ultimately changed the game
The penalty was eventually converted by Campbell, giving Hibs the lead.
Rangers did manage to get themselves level when Miguel Chaiwa turned the ball into his own net, but the home side could not find the decisive second goal.
Instead, Callum Wright struck in stoppage time to give Hibs a stunning 2-1 victory.
That made the earlier penalty even more painful for the Ibrox support.
McInnes was openly unhappy with the decision afterwards, describing it as “really, really soft”, while Rangers were left to reflect on another match in which they failed to turn their dominance into the result they wanted.
The controversy should not completely disguise Rangers’ own shortcomings, either.
The Gers had opportunities to win the game but failed to take them, while Hibs showed greater efficiency when their chances arrived.
Nevertheless, the penalty remains one of the defining talking points from the afternoon.
And until the VAR team or the Scottish FA provides a fuller explanation of the intervention, Rangers supporters are likely to continue asking the same question:
What did McDermid see on that replay that made the original decision worthy of being overturned?
Nafisa
