Willie Collum rules that officials would have been supported “either way” in subjective VAR calls

“For him, the Motherwell attacker does enough to impede the goalkeeper, affects him from being able to play the ball properly or challenge for the ball properly.

“The VAR and AVAR go into a thorough check. I like how they use a variety of angles to make a judgement of it.

“There is nothing there to tell them that what the referee has said is wrong. If they bring the referee to the monitor, what are they going to show him that is different from what he has described?

“The referee deems it as contact on the goalkeeper that is legal. What doesn’t do the Motherwell attacker any favours here is the Motherwell attacker doesn’t play the ball at all.

“This is a subjective decision for us, and regardless of what the referee had awarded here, the VAR would have supported this decision. We would have supported both decisions.”

On the penalty for Hibs against Rangers at the start of the month, Collum said: “There are loads of elements in this decision to consider.

“I’ll go back again, this again is a very subjective decision. There are loads of different things to consider. It’s subjective.

“The referee awards a penalty here, there is nothing to bring the referee to the monitor to overturn that.

“If the referee had decided to play on here, there is also elements to support that decision.

“For us, it is very subjective where we would say regardless of the on-field decision we would support it.”