Celtic's Daizen Maeda became the focal point of a contentious penalty debate during their recent Scottish Premiership match against Motherwell at Fir Park.

The Hoops winger put the ball into the net last Sunday (October 27), but it was ruled out for handball. On second viewing he actually appeared to be fouled by Motherwell vice-captain Stephen O'Donnell inside the box first.

Now, the Scottish FA's KMI Panel has concluded that a penalty should have been awarded to Celtic, but the decision was not unanimous, sparking further discussion about officiating in the Scottish top-flight.

After a detailed review of the weekend’s top-flight matches, the KMI Panel engaged in an extensive discussion regarding the incident involving Maeda and O'Donnell.

The opinion from four out of the five panelists suggests that a foul occurred before any handball was committed, indicating that referee David Dickinson missed a critical call that could have made it an even smoother afternoon for Celtic.

While the panel agreed that Dickinson correctly ruled out a Celtic goal due to the handball, they insisted that he should have blown the whistle for the foul on Maeda prior to that incident.

Additionally, the panel expressed concern over the VAR process in this case. They argued that Alan Muir, who was overseeing the VAR, along with his assistant Gary Hilland, should have recommended that Dickinson reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor.

Instead, the referee's initial decision to deny Celtic a penalty remained unchanged, leaving fans and analysts questioning the reliability of the video review system.

This ruling adds to the ongoing scrutiny of officiating standards in Scottish football, particularly regarding how consistently penalties are awarded. As Celtic continues to strive for another successful campaign under manager Brendan Rodgers, they will be eager to address these controversial moments, hoping for more equitable treatment in their upcoming fixtures.

Read more:

"The panel deemed this to be a correct intervention for a handball which led directly to a goal," the SFA said. 

"The panel agreed this is a difficult incident for the Referee to identify, however also agreed that the Assistant Referee should have identified this offence on-field.

"After a lengthy discussion on the incident, the majority (4:1) of the panel deemed this should have firstly been identified as a foul by the on-field Referee and an on-field review should have been recommended by the VAR when the penalty was not awarded.

"As the goal was correctly ruled out for handball, the majority of the panel (4:1) felt the penalty-kick should have been awarded as this offence occurred before the handball. One panel member felt the decision not to award the penalty-kick was correct and that no intervention was required.

"The panel also noted that, in line with VAR protocol, VAR could not advise on any sanction for the offending player during a potential OFR, which must be decided by the on-field referee."