Michael Beale has hailed referee John Beaton for his performance during Monday's derby fixture between Rangers and Celtic.
The whistler awarded a penalty for the Govan outfit and also waved away appeals for a Celtic spot-kick when Connor Goldson appeared to block a Carl Starfelt shot with his hand.
Chris Sutton and John Hartson have since publically criticised the referee for the aforementioned decision, but Beale reckons Beaton was correct with his calls.
He said: "We all wanted it, now we’ve got it and we’re not sure if we want it or not.
"I think that’s where we’re at. At the time, I didn't see it until after the game so I wasn’t sure at the time whether it was or wasn’t.
"I saw one player for them appeal for it, not everybody, and then you read the law and the law says one thing and it’s how that law is then perceived.
"The officials on the day perceived it a certain way. I thought John and the officials that were there had a good game.
"For an Old Firm game, I thought they managed the game really well. He didn’t bang cards out early.
"I thought it was a cracking game, two teams went head-to-head for the full 90 minutes and I thought John and the other officials managed the game very well.
"I actually thought that when the game ended. There are always some things you think that go for you or against you but when you read the rule it seems like they got it to the letter."
Former referee Stuart Dougal believes video assistant referee Willie Collum was right not to intervene in Celtic’s penalty claim at Ibrox.
Collum studied the incident but did not offer Beaton the chance to take a second look on the pitchside monitor.
Dougal backed that decision but also insisted that VAR would not have intervened if Beaton had given the spot-kick.
Dougal told BBC Scotland: “The current laws at the moment are: ‘Did the player make himself unnaturally bigger? Has there actually been a handball?’ If you’re a Celtic fan I’m sure you’re going to claim, ‘Yeah, I can see a little nick there’.
“If it does, where is it hitting? It looks as if it’s going to hit his head, so he’s not making his body unnaturally bigger. Another key factor here is, are his hands outwith his body? No.
“The distance between the two players is something else that VAR and the referee would take into consideration.
“And is it conclusive that there is actually a handball where the hands are above the shoulder or beyond?
“When you take them all together, I’ll let other people make up their mind whether they would give a penalty or not.
“The reason VAR didn’t get involved in it is that they don’t see a clear and obvious error.
“If you think that was a handball because the hands are big and above the head, then you’re entitled to give a penalty kick. I don’t think VAR would get involved then either.
“That refereeing decision has really got to stand whether or not the Celtic fans think it’s fair.”
The laws of the game state that a handball happens when, firstly, a player “deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball”.
The other scenario is when a player touches the ball with their hand/arm “when it has made their body unnaturally bigger”, ie. the “position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation”.
The International Football Association Board, which decides on the laws of the game, previously addressed a similar a scenario in a QandA example in which a defender, who is very close to an attacker taking a powerful shot, puts their hands towards their face in a reflex action for protection.
IFAB stated: “The referee allows play to continue as the hand/arm position was the result of the player’s natural (reflex) movement and did not make the body unnaturally bigger.”
