The reaction to one controversial Celtic decision at Easter Road quickly moved beyond the incident itself and into something far more revealing.
Celtic’s win at Hibs produced a flashpoint when Joe Newell’s goal for Hibs sparked immediate debate over whether it should have stood.
Kris Boyd initially held a firm line, insisting the decision should stand if inconclusive and that Celtic simply had to accept it and move on.
But his position quickly unravelled and Chris Sutton revealed to a Celtic supporter how his Sky Sports co-pundit really felt about it criticising the Hibs goal.
How about that, Celtic fans? Three massive points
Kelechi Iheanacho yet again!
Chris Sutton’s Celtic ‘pain’ about Boyd lands because it rings true
That is what made the exchange that followed so telling, when a Celtic fan summed it up directly: “I want to make you laugh, Chris. Did you see Kris Boyd today? God bless him.
“Did you see him? He had to support Celtic. It was incredible when he had to do that.
“He said that [Hibs] goal should not have stood. That’s what he had to do.”
The response from Sutton cut through with clarity as the former Celtic striker admitted “it pained him a little bit.”
Sutton said: “No, to be fair to him. I mean, he is on the wind up at times. To be fair to him, he does sort of say it as he sees it.
“I mean, it did pain him a little bit, but it will be interesting tomorrow, won’t it?”
By that stage, the point had already been made, as Boyd admitted the goal should not have stood, leaving the earlier argument behind.
The significance was not in the debate itself but in how quickly Boyd backtracked once the facts were laid out and how even the most reluctant agreement still proved he couldn’t bear taking a positive Celtic position.
Boyd’s Celtic position starts unravelled under pressure
That stance became harder to defend when Boyd began to describe the incident himself, pointing to the ball hitting Joe Newell’s arm just before he scored Hibs’ equaliser.
The contradiction was immediate, and it did not go unnoticed as McFadden questioned the decision while McGeady challenged whether it was unclear.
What began as a defence of the goal against Celtic being allowed, changed into a position that could not be held once the details were laid out to Boyd.
Receive a digest of our best Celtic content each week direct to your mailbox
