Rangers supporters may not like Hyunjun Yang’s equaliser standing, but Dermot Gallagher’s verdict makes it difficult to argue officials applied the law incorrectly.
The former referee made it clear the decision followed the same interpretation being used throughout Scotland and England this season.
Yang’s goal quickly became the biggest talking point from Celtic’s 3-1 win after questions emerged over Benjamin Nygren’s positioning in front of Jack Butland.
However, Dermot Gallagher explained that officials have consistently allowed these goals when a player is moving away from the goalkeeper and not directly obstructing their line of vision.
Should Scotland employ foreign referees to officiate Celtic v Rangers games? 😯🤔🤨
Give us your thoughts below…👇
Dermot Gallagher’s Celtic explanation matches IFAB law
The key point in this debate is not whether Butland felt distracted. It is whether Nygren clearly interfered with his ability to make the save.
According to the current IFAB offside interpretation, an offside player must directly impact the goalkeeper’s line of sight or movement to be penalised.
Gallagher’s assessment was straightforward. Nygren was moving away from Butland rather than standing directly in front of him.
The former Premier League referee said, “They have been consistent both in Scotland and England on this all season – players moving away from the line of the ‘keeper, not directly in front of him, inevitably they give a goal and this is consistent with what we have seen all season.”
That is why the former official stressed this type of incident has been judged consistently all season across both Scotland and England.
Once that context is applied, the argument that Celtic somehow benefited from unusual treatment quickly falls apart.
Jay Bothroyd’s Celtic point actually weakens the Rangers case
Jay Bothroyd admitted Butland would naturally feel he “might” have had a chance had Nygren not been standing nearby.
He said, “The way Butland is looking at it, if he is not there, then he is saying I might have had a chance of getting to it and that is the way he is looking at it.
“When we look at it, we are saying we do not think he can get there, which he probably would not have, but Butland thinks I might have had he not been there.”
That is understandable from a goalkeeper’s perspective. The problem for Rangers is that Bothroyd also conceded Butland probably still does not reach the shot anyway.
That point matters because modern offside interpretation is based on actual interference rather than hypothetical outcomes.
Rangers may remain frustrated by the Celtic goal, but frustration alone does not make the decision incorrect. Based on the law and the interpretation being applied throughout the season, Celtic’s equaliser was always likely to stand.
Receive a digest of our best Celtic content each week direct to your mailbox
