Stuart Kettlewell has revealed he held talks with SFA ref chief Crawford Allan over decisions in Motherwell's loss to Rangers.
The Fir Park boss demanded answers after the loss over Rangers' third goal and the decision to send off Callum Slattery for a second yellow card.
Kettlewell was left bemused over the decision to allow Todd Cantwell's goal to stand with claims Fashion Sakala was offside in the build-up.
Bevis Mugabi also questioned the "suspect" offside lines used the determine whether the player was offside when the goal was checked by VAR.
He also slammed the decision to send off Slattery after Cantwell went down as Slattery looked to protect the ball with an outstretched arm.
Now, the Motherwell boss has revealed that he spoke with Allan over the decisions this morning.
READ MORE: Stuart Kettlewell demands Rangers decision clarity
On BBC Sportsound, Kettlewell said: “That’s the biggest frustration for me. It's not a second yellow but with the player's reaction (it looks like it).
“I've said this to Crawford Allan this morning when I had a conversation with him.
“It was an amicable conversation. I just had a couple of questions I wanted answers on."
Kettlewell, however, added that he appreciated the tough job Nick Walsh faced during the match as he slated Cantwell's reaction to the coming together.
He added: “But I did say I realise Nick Walsh's job becomes incredibly difficult when the player goes down in the fashion that he did, holding his face.
“There was contact, but it wasn't to his face. This is when you start to become frustrated.
“It's a difficult one for Nick Walsh with the scenario he was given, but I don't think it was a yellow card."
On Rangers' third goal, Mugabi told Lanarkshire Live: "It's been a bit questionable. A lot of people have noticed the lines look a bit suspect but that is out of our control, we can't control what VAR does.
"All we can do is focus on ourselves and make sure we do what we are supposed to do during the game.
"It is just a shame we couldn't hold on for a bit longer than we did after the goal and the sending off didn't help us either."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel