Michael Stewart believes VAR reached the correct outcome over Joe Newell’s equaliser against Celtic, but his defence of the decision is unlikely to convince supporters who watched the incident unfold in disbelief.
The debate surrounding Hibs’ goal has never really been about one freeze frame or one replay angle. It has become another example of how Scottish football continues to leave supporters arguing over interpretation of the rules rather than clarity.
That is why Stewart’s explanation will divide opinion. The Premier Sports pundit attempted to justify why the goal stood, but in doing so he highlighted exactly why many Celtic fans still do not trust the process surrounding VAR decisions.
Do you agree with Mark Clattenburg on Hibs’ goal against Celtic?
Michael Stewart says Joe Newell goal vs Celtic was ‘inconclusive’
In what will be viewed as a bizarre take on the incident by Celtic fans, Stewart has defended VAR claiming the decision is not as straightforward as many make out.
Stewart said: “When you see the replay, you can see Joe Newell’s white sleeve ruffles. There’s clearly been a bit of contact, which would be the t-shirt line.
“Anything after that, I don’t think you can definitively say one way or another. My gut is that it hits just above his hip and his thigh is my instinct.
“The t-shirt line is obviously not a handball. Anything after that, I just think you’ve got to stick with the on-field decision, personally.
“Inconclusive enough not to overrule the goal? Yes. I think it hits almost his ribs and then his thigh. I just think the goal was given and I don’t think there’s enough conclusive evidence to overrule it.
“To be consistent here, I don’t want to see goals chopped off for decisions you think, ‘What? Really?’.
“This is a difficult one for VAR, and to be honest, I think it was probably the right call because I don’t think it was clear enough for anyone to say that’s 100 per cent, definitively a handball. I think it’s catching his ribs, rolling down to his thigh.
“I appreciate others see it differently, but I just think it’s inconclusive.”
Michael Stewart’s defence still leaves too many questions
Stewart’s core argument is built around certainty. His position is that VAR should not overturn a goal unless the footage clearly proves the ball struck Newell’s arm illegally.
That logic sounds reasonable on paper, but it also exposes the exact frustration many Celtic supporters now have with the system. The conversation quickly becomes less about what actually happened and more about whether the available camera angles are good enough.
The incident itself looked messy from the beginning. Even Stewart admitted the replay required interpretation rather than delivering a clear answer.
That is the problem for supporters watching at home. When major moments are still being described as “gut instinct” and “inconclusive” after multiple replays, confidence in the process naturally weakens.
There is also a wider issue around consistency. Stewart argued he does not want goals “chopped off” for marginal calls, but supporters have seen similarly subjective incidents produce completely different results across Scottish football.
That inconsistency is what keeps these debates alive long after the final whistle. Fans are no longer simply arguing over handball decisions, they are questioning whether VAR is actually bringing clarity to the game at all.
Receive a digest of our best Celtic content each week direct to your mailbox
