Willie Collum has admitted "there's a good chance" Rangers should have had a second goal against Hibernian - but backed the decision not to award it.
The Scottish FA referee chief conceded there is a possibility that Nico Raskin's effort at Easter Road was over the line before it was cleared by Rocky Bushiri.
Hibs would then march up the park and equalise before a lengthy VAR check over the incident.
However, crucially, the official backed the decision not to award the goal as there was no conclusive camera angle to determine that the ball was definitely over the line.
In an honest discussion over the incident on the VAR Review show, Collum admitted he thinks the ball was likely in, but defended the VAR and AVAR for following protocol after criticism over the handling of similar situations previously.
He said: "Let's go back to two incidents this season first - Hibs vs Celtic, possible ball over the line, and Dundee United vs Hibs, possible handball before it goes into the goal.
"We were criticised for both of those decisions, and rightly so and I said that on this show, because ultimately, there was no conclusive evidence.
"I know people who would look at this decision and say 'that camera angle, for me, is conclusive.'
"But the reality is, that camera angle is at an angle looking in the way, there's nothing directly in line there.
"I've quoted before, in a World Cup match, there was a similar angle shown in a Japan game where, if you'd used that angle, you would say the ball was over the line.
"Then when you line it up directly in line, it only needs a slight part of the ball to be touching that line.
"Can the VAR and the AVAR there categorically, 100 per cent, say the ball was over the line? Not for us.
Read more:
"Do I think it crossed the line? I think there's a good chance it did.
"But can I be absolutely certain of that? No."
For Collum, the tricky situation was only made more difficult by the ball being off the ground in the final frame before it was cleared leaving a lack of conclusive evidence.
"What doesn't help in this scenario is that the ball is not on the ground," he said.
"I think you could make a call here if the ball was on the ground, well over, there was loads of grass between it.
"In terms of that camera angle, in terms of the ball being mid-air, can we be 100 per cent? We don't think we can be.
"We've been criticised previously, we've now moved to say we'll only give a decision like that if we've got 100 per cent conclusive evidence, so the VAR and AVAR are correct to say there that they don't have that evidence."
Share