Ex-referees played down the handball call in Celtic’s victory against St Mirren at Hampden

Former referees have taken a relatively relaxed stance on a controversial handball incident during Celtic F.C.’s win over St Mirren F.C. at Hampden Park, but their own explanations appear to highlight a contradiction between their interpretation and the official laws of the game.

The debate centres on an incident involving Mark O’Hara, who appeared to catch the ball while it was still in play before throwing it out.

Referee Matthew McDairmid awarded a throw-in but chose not to caution the player, a decision that has sparked discussion among Celtic supporters.

While some former officials have downplayed the situation, the key issue lies in how the decision has been justified after the fact.

According to IFAB Law 12, a handball offence is committed when a player deliberately moves their hand or arm towards the ball.

This definition is widely considered straightforward, especially when intent is acknowledged.

However, those defending the referee’s call have leaned on interpretation rather than strict application of the rules, with arguments suggesting that not every handball automatically results in a caution.

Despite this, some of the same former referees reviewing the incident admitted that the action could have been deliberate, which raises further questions about consistency. While they ultimately supported the referee’s handling of the situation, suggesting it was managed in the “spirit of the game,” this position becomes harder to justify when considering the potential consequences of the decision.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that O’Hara was later booked late in the match, meaning that an earlier caution for the handball could have resulted in a second yellow card and a dismissal.

This shifts the discussion beyond interpretation and into the direct impact on the game, raising concerns about whether the rules were applied consistently.

Although the handball did not prevent a clear scoring opportunity, overlooking it may set a precedent for how similar incidents are treated in future matches.

It also creates a level of irony, particularly given that platforms dedicated to analysing refereeing decisions have frequently criticised officials for failing to apply the laws correctly.