SFA Review Maeda’s Disallowed Goal v St Johnstone and Give Their Verdict

Celtic may have eased to a comfortable victory at McDiarmid Park, but Daizen Maeda’s disallowed first-half goal remains a subject of dispute after the SFA’s Key Match Incident panel voted in favour of the decision to chalk it off.
Maeda, who eventually scored in the second half of the 6-0 victory over St Johnstone, had a fantastic first goal disallowed by VAR.
The incident started when Maeda appeared to break the deadlock when she hammered the ball into the top corner following a Celtic free-kick from the right side. But VAR intervened to examine what appeared to be a foul committed in the build-up by Celtic center-back Auston Trusty. When Trusty and a St Johnstone defender collided while chasing the ball, it was allegedly a foul.

The event was shown on the pitchside monitor for referee Don Robertson to assess, and much to the chagrin of Celtic supporters, Maeda’s goal was disallowed for what Trusty judged to be a foul. Many people were perplexed by the ruling because there didn’t seem to be any obvious foul play involved and the accident looked to be just a typical coming together.

By a majority vote of 4-1, the SFA panel has now ruled that VAR was right to intervene. Although the panel agreed that the first on-field ruling was wrong, it supported the VAR’s analysis and disallowed the goal. However, one panelist disagreed, arguing that the goal should have remained, supporting the general consensus that the judgment was unduly harsh.

In their verdict, the panel stated: “The panel discussed this decision at length with the majority (4:1) deeming the on-field decision incorrect… The majority (4:1) believed VAR was correct to intervene and disallow the goal.”

Many Celtic fans are perplexed by the ruling, believing that Trusty was not at fault in the incident. Some even argue that the St Johnstone player was the one who made the initial contact.
Although Maeda’s disallowed goal had little bearing on the outcome, supporters are angry with what they perceive to be yet another questionable refereeing call.