Celtic boss responds to Steven Naismith's controversial claim

Celtic managed to get a 2-0 win against Hearts, thanks to a spot-kick from Arne Engels and a late goal from Luke McCowan, to maintain their winning start to the season. The result means that Brendan Rodgers' side have won all of their first five league games without conceding a soitary goal so far. They also won their Scottish League Cup second round tie against Hibernian last month.

Not the best performance but a solid result for Celtic. They will now focus on their Champions League opener for the season, as they get ready to welcome Slovan Bratislava to Parkhead.

It is rare for the Hoops to enter a Champions League game as favourites. That will be the case this midweek though. But they cannot afford to take the Slovakian side lightly. There are no easy games at that level and Rodgers' side must bring their A-game.

On the other hand, there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding their win over Hearts. It proved to be a night of two penalty calls. Celtic were given one, which Engels converted, and Hearts were not. To us, it looked like the right decisions were made. But Steven Naismith did not agree, as he felt neither was a spot-kick.

Celtic boss responds to Steven Naismith's controversial claim

Rodgers does not agree with Naismith's assessment of the events. As reported by The Celtic Way (via 67 Hail Hail), the manager said:

"It’s hard for Steven because he knows the first goal is so important in the game. If it goes to them, then Hearts have something to hang onto. If it goes to us, then the climate of the game changes.

“When you look at it, the rules are pretty clear, both were grappling and the ball came over onto his sleeve. In everyone’s book that’s not a penalty, but you want it. I can understand that.

“Likewise [on the second incident], the law tells you that if your arms are up away from the silhouette, then that is a penalty, and that’s how it worked out. There’s always a feeling if you don’t get it and the other team gets it then it’s a bit harsh, but I thought that the referee and officials did really well in those two moments.

“I trusted the referees to have a look at it. You can’t connect the two, the referee did well with the decisions. The people in VAR have looked at it. Just because one team doesn’t get one, doesn’t mean the other doesn’t too. By the letter of the law, one was a penalty and the other wasn’t.

“That’s why we have VAR. I think that he made his decision because it’s quick-fire. When the arm is out he sees it as a hand-ball. It’s the reason why we have VAR in place because the guys in the studio will look at it and think ‘not quite’. Similar to how our goal was disallowed – that was a really good call. It was just a fraction offside, but it was offside. I thought the officials worked really well."

It is easy to understand why Naismith might not agree with the call. At the end of the day, it is a matter of opinion.

Celtic fans agreed with the decision on the day, but if the shoe was on the other foot, the reaction might have been different. That is just human nature and it is almost impossible to have a neutral point of view when supporting a particular team.