The title is won, the champagne is flat – and now the paperwork begins. Two of Celtic’s most dramatic moments in a historic run-in are under formal SPFL investigation, and Scottish football’s VAR question hasn’t gone away.
The SPFL has confirmed it is investigating five matches for conduct violations, with two Celtic games – the 3-2 win at Fir Park on 13 May and the 3-1 defeat to Hearts at Paradise on 16 May – included in that group following pitch invasions after late goals. The investigations run under SPFL Rules H36 and H37, covering spectator behaviour, unacceptable conduct and field-of-play incursions. Alongside those, the Scottish FA’s Key Match Incidents panel has delivered what amounts to a formal rebuke of the VAR call that awarded Celtic a penalty against Motherwell deep into added time – ruling, by a majority of two to one, that the decision should never have been given.
It is worth noting – and we have to be honest about this – that the KMI panel’s ruling does not alter the result, does not strip any points, and does not affect Celtic’s title. The Hoops are champions. But the findings do matter, and here’s why.
What the Probe Actually Covers
The SPFL’s disciplinary investigations are not about the penalty decision itself – that sits with the SFA and the KMI panel separately. The SPFL probe is focused squarely on supporter behaviour, specifically the pitch invasions that followed Kelechi Iheanacho’s last-gasp winner at Motherwell and the scenes at Paradise after the Hearts match on the final weekend of the season.
Rules H36 and H37 place the responsibility firmly on clubs. “The home club in any official match must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, good order and security… that any incidents of unacceptable conduct are effectively dealt with,” the SPFL confirmed, quoting the relevant rules in full. Sanctions under these rules can range from fines to partial ground closures – and the SPFL has already concluded 11 disciplinary processes against eight clubs this season alone for similar incidents, before accounting for the end-of-season flashpoints now under review.
There are also separate allegations – made by Hearts shareholder Tony Bloom – that visiting players were assaulted during the Celtic Park pitch invasion. Martin O’Neill was not hiding how he felt about those claims, stating flatly that the allegation “has not been proved” and adding that if evidence does surface, “apologies are due.” Police Scotland are conducting a parallel criminal inquiry. That part of the story has its own trajectory.
The Penalty Decision – and Why the Panel’s Verdict Stings
The KMI panel’s ruling on the Motherwell penalty is the sharpest element of all this, and it deserves to be looked at clearly. VAR Andrew Dallas advised referee John Beaton to review a handball against Sam Nicholson, who had leapt alongside Auston Trusty – Beaton, having initially played on, went to the monitor and pointed to the spot. Iheanacho converted. Celtic won 3-2, staying within a point of Hearts heading into the final weekend.
The panel’s written verdict, as confirmed by STV, is unambiguous: “The majority (2:1) of the panel deemed the on-field decision of play on to be correct… VAR was incorrect to intervene and the penalty was incorrectly awarded for handball after OFR.” That is one of the clearest public rebukes of a specific VAR intervention since the system was introduced in Scottish football – and it matters as precedent, even if it changes nothing retrospectively. For the full context of what happened at Fir Park that afternoon, our coverage of the penalty controversy during the title run-in is essential reading.
VAR in Scotland – Still a Running Sore
The KMI panel only began publishing detailed post-match reviews from the 2023-24 season, partly as a response to mounting criticism of VAR’s consistency – or lack of it – in the Scottish Premiership. Celtic have been at the centre of more than one high-profile dispute since VAR’s introduction in October 2022, with club figures and supporter groups pointing to a pattern of interventions that seem to find a way of going against the Hoops at critical moments. Make of that what you will.
Pundits on Sky Sports argued the VAR should have deferred to Beaton’s original call, with one contributor saying Nicholson’s hand was in a “natural position” and the review “never reached the clear and obvious error bar” required for intervention. That threshold – clear and obvious error – is the whole point of VAR. It is not there to second-guess every 50-50 call. When it is used for that purpose, you get exactly the kind of 2-1 split verdict that embarrasses the system publicly.
The SFA’s end-of-season KMI review is expected to inform any changes to VAR guidance and handball interpretation ahead of 2026-27. Whether that produces meaningful reform or another round of carefully-worded statements is the question Scottish football supporters – Celtic fans very much included – have been asking for three years. We have been here before, as SPFL governance sagas tend to remind us.
What Happens Next – and What Won’t
To be clear about what this probe can and cannot deliver: no result will be reversed. The title stays. The 3-2 win at Fir Park is in the record books. The KMI panel’s ruling is a finding of process failure, not a basis for sporting remedy – that is not how Scottish football’s disciplinary architecture works, and anyone telling you otherwise is getting carried away.
What the SPFL can do is fine Celtic, issue formal warnings, or – in more serious cases – impose suspended sanctions tied to future behaviour. The disciplinary tribunal will assess written reports from match delegates, police, and both clubs before deciding on charges. That process typically concludes within a few weeks. Whether the probe ultimately treats Celtic’s cases as repeat offences – given reported prior findings this season – remains to be seen, but it is a live question.
The VAR governance question is the one with longer legs. A 2-1 ruling that an intervention was wrong, issued publicly, is precisely the kind of transparency pressure that should force the SFA’s refereeing department to tighten its protocols. Whether it actually does is the test that the 2026-27 season will provide.
The title is ours. Five in a row. Fourteen in fifteen years. No investigation, no panel ruling, and no amount of paperwork changes that. But we are right to keep asking the questions – because the next title race starts sooner than anyone thinks, and the system needs to be better when it does.
Mon The Hoops.
