Chris Sutton offered a mischievous one-liner about Rangers’ VAR goal review while Kris Boyd pressed his case for a red card.

Sutton delivers sharp VAR quip as Rangers spark comeback drama

Chris Sutton could not resist making a cheeky remark while reacting to the controversial decision that allowed Rangers to pull a goal back in their chaotic clash with Falkirk. Meanwhile, fellow pundit Kris Boyd found himself in disagreement with Sutton over whether a first-half challenge should have resulted in a red card.

Nico Raskin’s cross

The match itself was nothing short of extraordinary, packed with twists, controversy, and a remarkable turnaround. Falkirk, managed by John McGlynn, had stormed into a commanding 2-0 lead, leaving Danny Rohl’s Rangers side struggling to cope in the early stages.

The hosts struck first through Ben Broggio, whose early effort set the tone, before Finn Yeats added a second with a superb curling finish. At that point, Falkirk looked firmly in control, with Rangers appearing rattled and lacking answers.

However, the momentum of the match shifted dramatically just before half-time in a moment that quickly became the main talking point. Rangers managed to get themselves back into the contest under highly unusual circumstances, setting the stage for an incredible comeback.

The move began when Thelo Aasgaard struck the post, with the ball rebounding back into play. It eventually found its way to Nico Raskin, who delivered a high, looping cross from the left-hand side. The trajectory of the ball immediately raised questions, as it appeared to drift out of play above the crossbar of Scott Bain before curling back into the field.

Despite the uncertainty, Djeidi Gassama reacted quickly, heading the ball back across the goal. His effort struck the post again, but the danger was not over. Tochi Chukwuani was on hand to smash the rebound emphatically into the roof of the net, giving Rangers a crucial lifeline.

The goal sparked immediate protests from the Falkirk players, who believed the ball had gone out of play in the build-up. A VAR review was conducted by Andrew Dallas, but after a lengthy check, the on-field decision stood. The goal was awarded, and Rangers went into the break trailing by just one goal instead of two.

Replays of the incident failed to provide a definitive answer, adding to the confusion and controversy surrounding the decision. It was during this analysis that Sutton delivered his humorous take, joking that the ball looked like it had ended up “almost in the front row of the stand,” highlighting just how far it appeared to have gone.

That moment proved to be a turning point in the game. Energized by the goal, Rangers came out in the second half with renewed intensity and produced a stunning response. Over a frantic 16-minute spell spanning either side of half-time, they scored four times to completely overturn the deficit.

What had seemed like a comfortable afternoon for Falkirk quickly turned into a nightmare, as Rangers seized control and ultimately powered their way to an astonishing 6-3 victory in one of the most dramatic matches of the season.

Alongside the VAR controversy, there was also significant debate over a challenge involving Jayden Meghoma. The incident occurred when Meghoma brought down Calvin Miller as the Falkirk winger attempted to break forward from his own half.

Meghoma fouls Calvin Miller

Boyd argued that the challenge did not warrant a red card. In his view, while it was a foul and involved a high tackle, it was not reckless enough to justify a dismissal. He also pointed out that Miller’s touch had taken him away from goal, meaning he was not in a clear goal-scoring position.

To support his argument, Boyd referenced a separate incident involving Marc Leonard and Robbie Muirhead during a recent 2-2 draw between Hearts and Livingston. He maintained that the earlier challenge had been more deserving of a red card than Meghoma’s, yet still felt neither incident met the threshold for a sending-off.

Sutton, however, took a different stance. While he admitted that he did not believe Leonard’s challenge the previous week should have resulted in a red card due to the distance involved, he emphasized the importance of consistency in officiating decisions.

According to Sutton, if referees were prepared to issue a red card for the earlier incident, then they should apply the same standard to Meghoma’s challenge. In his view, similar situations should lead to similar outcomes, regardless of the context of the match.

The contrasting opinions between the two pundits added another layer to an already eventful encounter. Between the contentious VAR decision, the debate over disciplinary action, and Rangers’ incredible comeback, the match provided no shortage of talking points.

In the end, Sutton’s witty remark about the goal and his insistence on consistency in refereeing captured the chaotic nature of the game, while Boyd’s perspective highlighted the ongoing debate around interpretation of fouls and red card decisions in modern football.