A Celtic-enthusiast pundit insists on their stance on the VAR decision and criticizes the media ‘scientists.’

Former striker and outspoken pundit Chris Sutton has once again defended the controversial VAR decision that awarded Celtic F.C. a late penalty against Motherwell F.C., insisting the call was correct despite the fierce debate that has surrounded the incident in recent days.

The incident occurred during the closing stages of Celtic’s dramatic match at Fir Park last Wednesday and has continued to dominate discussion among supporters, pundits and media outlets throughout the week.

At the centre of the controversy was Motherwell player Sam Nicholson, who was penalised for handball after challenging for a header inside the penalty area.

The decision was reviewed through VAR before Celtic were awarded the crucial spot-kick, a moment that immediately sparked furious reactions from sections of supporters and football commentators.

Many fans argued the decision was extremely harsh and questioned whether the ball had actually struck Nicholson’s hand in a punishable manner.

Others believed the player’s arm position was natural or that any contact was accidental due to the physical nature of the aerial challenge.

The debate intensified further because of the significance of the match and the role the penalty played in Celtic’s eventual Scottish Premiership title triumph.

Despite the widespread criticism directed toward the officials and the VAR intervention, Sutton has made it clear that he still fully agrees with the decision.

Speaking on Football Daily after Celtic secured the league title on the final day of the season, the former striker doubled down on his previous comments and insisted that the evidence supported the referee’s call.

Sutton stated that, in his view, the situation was straightforward because the ball struck Nicholson’s hand and therefore met the criteria for handball.

According to the pundit, the key issue was simply the position of the player’s arm at the moment the ball made contact.

“The bottom line is, it was a handball,” Sutton explained during the discussion.

He argued that Nicholson’s arm was in a position where contact with the ball resulted in a legitimate offence under the current interpretation of the laws of the game.

Sutton appeared frustrated by some of the arguments being used to dispute the decision, particularly suggestions that the movement and distance of the ball meant it could not realistically have touched Nicholson’s hand.

He mocked those claims while questioning the certainty with which some critics had dismissed the possibility of handball.

Referring to people who argued the ball had travelled too far or too quickly for the contact to occur in the way officials believed, Sutton sarcastically responded: “People are saying it couldn’t have hit his hand because the ball travelled 30 yards. I mean, who are these people? Are they scientists? They are not!”

His comments quickly attracted attention online, with supporters on both sides continuing to argue fiercely over the decision.

While Sutton defended the officials, many football fans still believe the incident highlighted ongoing problems surrounding handball interpretations and VAR consistency in Scottish football.

Some critics feel the laws regarding handball remain too subjective and often leave room for wildly different interpretations depending on the referee or VAR officials involved.

Others argue that incidents like the one involving Nicholson demonstrate why supporters remain frustrated with the use of video technology in football.

However, Sutton acknowledged that he understood why emotions had been running high after the match.

The former Celtic striker admitted there was understandable anger from Motherwell supporters and others who believed the decision had unfairly influenced the outcome of the game.

“I understand the anger there was on Wednesday night,” Sutton said during the programme.

He stressed that he could appreciate why many supporters disagreed with the call and recognised that controversial moments involving VAR frequently create heated reactions.

Even so, Sutton insisted that disagreement over the incident did not change his opinion that the officials ultimately reached the correct conclusion.

The pundit accepted that some people would continue debating whether Nicholson’s arm had been raised naturally or whether it had been forced upward during the challenge.

He noted that others were arguing the player’s arm movement should have been taken into account before awarding the penalty.

Nevertheless, Sutton maintained that none of those arguments changed the fact that the ball had struck the player’s hand.

According to him, once that contact occurred, the officials were justified in awarding the penalty.

“People are saying it’s not a handball,” Sutton continued. “You can argue about whether his arm was pushed up or whatever, but it was a handball.”

The former striker concluded his remarks by suggesting the controversy should now be considered settled.

“So, you know, that’s it,” he added.

The debate surrounding the incident has once again highlighted the ongoing divisions within Scottish football regarding VAR and handball rulings.

Since the introduction of video assistant referees, supporters and pundits have repeatedly clashed over the consistency of decisions and the interpretation of football’s laws.

Handball incidents, in particular, remain among the most controversial areas because of the difficulty in judging intent, arm position and natural body movement.

The Motherwell-Celtic incident has become another example of how subjective interpretations can lead to major disagreement even after multiple replays and VAR reviews.

For Celtic supporters, the penalty represented a legitimate decision that helped their side move closer to securing the Premiership crown.

For Motherwell fans and many neutral observers, however, the call was viewed as extremely debatable and symptomatic of wider frustrations with officiating standards.

Sutton’s strong defence of the decision was perhaps unsurprising given both his outspoken personality and his well-known support for Celtic.

Throughout his broadcasting career, the former striker has regularly offered blunt opinions on controversial football incidents and has often become involved in heated debates over refereeing decisions.

His latest remarks ensured the discussion surrounding the penalty remained firmly in the spotlight nearly a week after the original incident took place.

The controversy also demonstrated how influential VAR decisions can become in title races and high-pressure matches where every moment is scrutinised intensely.

Although Celtic ultimately celebrated another Scottish Premiership title, debate over the Motherwell penalty continues to divide opinion among supporters across Scotland.

Some believe the officials correctly applied the laws of the game, while others remain convinced the decision should never have been given.

For Sutton, though, the argument appears simple.

Regardless of the backlash, criticism or continued debate, he believes the ball struck Nicholson’s hand, the officials made the correct decision and the controversy should now be put to rest.