Former FIFA referee weighs in on the Rangers–St Mirren controversy after correcting Chris Sutton.

Rangers were at the centre of a refereeing debate during their 2-0 victory over St Mirren after being awarded a controversial first-half penalty at Ibrox. Former FIFA referee Keith Hackett has now explained why he believes referee Nick Walsh made the correct decision, offering a different perspective from former Celtic striker Chris Sutton and ex-Rangers midfielder James McFadden.

The incident happened while the match was still goalless, with Rangers looking for an opportunity to take control of the contest. James Penrice went to ground inside the penalty area following contact from St Mirren defender Sam Ramos.

Walsh was convinced that the challenge was sufficient to award a spot-kick and immediately pointed to the penalty spot. The decision was subsequently checked by VAR, but the officials did not consider the contact serious enough to overturn the referee’s original call.

Ryan Naderi stepped forward to take responsibility and confidently converted the penalty, giving Rangers an important advantage in a match that had remained closely contested.

Dan Neil then added a second goal shortly after the hour mark, securing a 2-0 victory for Rangers.

Although the result ultimately went in their favour, the penalty decision attracted considerable discussion, with several television pundits questioning whether Penrice had been fouled.

Former FIFA referee explains why Rangers deserved penalty

Chris Sutton and James McFadden were both surprised that Walsh awarded Rangers a penalty. McFadden was particularly critical of the decision while covering the match for Sky Sports, describing it as the softest of penalties.

After watching the available replays, the former Scotland international maintained his position that such minimal contact should not be enough to justify awarding a spot-kick.

However, Hackett has offered a different interpretation of the incident. Speaking exclusively to Ibrox News, the former FIFA referee argued that the amount of contact was not the decisive factor when determining whether a foul had occurred.

Hackett believed Ramos had made a careless challenge on Penrice and that the contact was enough to justify Walsh’s decision.

He explained: “It’s a careless challenge by the defender, who makes contact with his opponent. It’s a foul and a penalty kick.”

The former official also referred to the wording of the Laws of the Game, explaining how a careless challenge is defined.

According to Hackett, a player can be considered careless when showing insufficient attention or consideration while attempting a challenge, or when acting without taking the necessary precautions.

His explanation suggests that the referee does not need to establish that a defender made particularly heavy contact before deciding that a foul has taken place.

Instead, the important consideration is whether the challenge was careless and whether contact was made with the opponent.

That interpretation directly challenges the argument put forward by Sutton and McFadden, who felt the contact involving Penrice was too minimal to justify a penalty.

What did Sutton and McFadden say?

The incident generated plenty of debate during Sky Sports’ coverage, with both former players expressing doubts about Walsh’s decision.

McFadden initially described the spot-kick as the softest of soft penalties. Having watched the replays, he remained unconvinced that Ramos had committed an offence serious enough to warrant a penalty.

His argument was that football should not see spot-kicks awarded whenever there is the slightest contact between opposing players inside the penalty area.

Sutton was similarly critical and suggested Penrice had influenced the referee’s decision.

The former Celtic striker said: “We can’t criticise referees if they make the wrong decisions. But there has to be sufficient contact.”

He then questioned how much contact had actually taken place between Ramos and Penrice, suggesting the Rangers player had made the most of the situation.

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

The pundit subsequently repeated his view that the incident should not have resulted in a penalty.

His comments reflected the frustration of those who believed Rangers had received a favourable decision at an important moment in the match.

Kris Boyd offers a different perspective

Former Rangers striker Kris Boyd also discussed the controversial incident during the television coverage.

Although he acknowledged that there was not much contact between the two players, Boyd understood why Walsh had decided to award a penalty.

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

Boyd also believed Walsh deserved some credit for making the decision himself instead of relying entirely on VAR to determine whether an offence had taken place.

Nevertheless, he admitted that he was not completely convinced the referee had reached the correct conclusion.

His assessment was therefore more measured than Sutton’s outright rejection of the penalty, while still recognising why the decision could generate disagreement.

Rangers benefit from important refereeing decision

Ultimately, Rangers made the most of the opportunity created by Walsh’s decision. Naderi converted from the spot, allowing the home side to break the deadlock in a match that had been goalless until that point.

Neil’s second-half contribution then ensured Rangers collected all three points with a 2-0 victory over St Mirren.

The penalty was an important moment because it gave Rangers the advantage they needed to take control of the contest.

Hackett’s explanation provides a rule-based argument supporting Walsh’s decision, while Sutton and McFadden remain unconvinced by the level of contact involved.

The disagreement highlights how individual interpretations of careless challenges can produce very different opinions, even when former referees and experienced football pundits examine the same incident.

For Rangers supporters, the most important outcome was securing another victory. However, the debate surrounding Penrice’s penalty is likely to continue, particularly among fans who believe the referee was too generous with his decision.

While Hackett has explained why he considers the spot-kick justified, Sutton’s criticism ensures the controversy is far from settled among those who watched the match.