Keith Hackett Challenges Chris Sutton Over James Penrice Penalty Controversy in Rangers Win

Rangers’ 2-0 victory over St Mirren was overshadowed by a first-half penalty controversy involving James Penrice, with former referee Keith Hackett offering a different interpretation to Chris Sutton.

The incident occurred while the match was still goalless, as Penrice went down inside the penalty area following contact from St Mirren defender Sam Ramos.

Referee Nick Walsh immediately pointed to the spot, while VAR reviewed the incident but did not recommend an on-field review.

Ryan Naderi converted the resulting penalty to give Rangers the lead, before Dan Neil added a second goal shortly after the hour mark to secure all three points.

However, the decision to award the spot-kick sparked considerable debate, with Sutton and James McFadden questioning whether there had been enough contact to justify the decision.

Keith Hackett explains why Rangers deserved penalty

Speaking exclusively to Ibrox News, former Premier League referee Keith Hackett defended Walsh’s decision and argued that the level of contact was not the deciding factor.

Hackett believes Ramos committed a careless challenge by making contact with Penrice inside the box, meaning the referee was justified in awarding a penalty.

“It’s a careless challenge by the defender, who makes contact with his opponent,” Hackett explained.

“It’s a foul and a penalty kick.

“The law defines ‘careless’ as when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution.”

His explanation directly challenges the argument that the contact was too minimal to warrant a spot-kick.

Chris Sutton and James McFadden question Rangers decision

The incident prompted an immediate reaction from Sky Sports pundits Chris Sutton and James McFadden, who were both surprised that Walsh awarded Rangers a penalty.

McFadden initially described the decision as “the softest of soft penalties” and maintained that referees should not award spot-kicks for such minimal contact.

Sutton was equally critical, suggesting Penrice had influenced the referee rather than being genuinely fouled.

“We can’t criticise referees if they make the wrong decisions. But there has to be sufficient contact,” Sutton said.

“Penrice has played Nick Walsh like a piccolo. How much contact is there – if any? It’s absolutely minimal.”

The former Celtic striker subsequently doubled down on his position, insisting the incident was “absolutely not a penalty”.

Hackett, however, believes the defender’s careless challenge was enough to justify the referee’s intervention.

Kris Boyd offers a different Rangers penalty verdict

Former Rangers striker Kris Boyd also discussed the incident during Sky Sports’ coverage.

Boyd admitted there was not much contact but understood why Walsh decided to award the penalty.

“There was not much in it but I can understand why it was given,” he said.

He also praised the referee for making his own assessment rather than waiting for VAR to intervene, although he stopped short of confirming that he believed it was the correct decision.

Ultimately, the penalty proved a significant moment in Rangers’ victory. Naderi’s successful conversion gave Derek McInnes’ side an important advantage, and Neil’s second-half strike ensured they left with all three points.

While Sutton and McFadden questioned the award, Hackett has explained why he believes Walsh was justified in pointing to the spot.