Rangers’ Old Firm defeat was once again defined by key flashpoints, a contentious opening goal, disciplinary questions around Alistair Johnston, and a post-match narrative that quickly moved away from refereeing and firmly onto Rangers’ own failings.
Danny Rohl, however, made it clear he was not interested in engaging that side of the debate.
When asked about the result and performance, his tone was flat and internalised.
“Disappointed. Of course, there’s no question mark,” he said.
“I think we saw a game that was very competitive. Both teams had momentum during the game, but finally we lost the game.”
Pressed on why Rangers failed to take anything from the post-split fixtures, Rohl again avoided external factors.
“It’s not enough for what we want and where we want to go,” he admitted.
“You come with a lot of confidence and then you lose all three.”
Danny Rohl refuses to call out officiating
The key flashpoint questions, however, came later, and were handled in a notably cautious way.
Celtic’s opening goal was the subject of scrutiny, with suggestions of offside interference in front of the goalkeeper.
Former FIFA and English FA referee Keith Hackett backed Gers claims of infringement.
“I really am surprised that this goal was allowed,” he said.
“It appeared to me that there’s a Celtic player in an offside position, in the line of the vision of the goalkeeper, therefore interfering with play, interfering with the opponent.
“The goal should not stand.”
While Alistair Johnston also escaped what some felt could have been a second yellow card after repeated infringements.
Former SPL referee Stevie Conroy called the decision not to send off the Canadian “staggering.”
What Danny Rohl said
Rohl’s response was measured but revealing in what he chose not to say.
“I’m at first not a guy who looks for excuses for some decisions,” he stated.
“What I heard so far, I didn’t see until now, that maybe there was an offside situation, I didn’t see it again.”
On the Johnston incident, he was equally non-committal.
“The foul felt on the pitch really aggressive, but I didn’t see it again,” he said.
“Some other people make the decision and if the decision is like this then we cannot change it now.”
Even when pressed on whether refereeing decisions should be reviewed more critically, Rohl refused to escalate the issue.
“If it’s the case that maybe it should be not allowed or red card, then hopefully someone takes responsibility,” he added.
“But this is crucial, we cannot change it now.”
That line of thinking has become increasingly consistent throughout his tenure.
Defeat down to Rangers own mistakes
Rohl repeatedly returned to Rangers’ own failings rather than external grievances.
“In some key areas our decision-making, if you make the mistakes again and again on this level, then it’s really tough to take the right results,” he said.
“We have to develop our resilience in some moments.”
Even when asked about fan frustration and growing criticism, his stance remained centred on acceptance rather than confrontation.
“I can understand this,” he said of supporter anger.
“If you come to a point where you can really feel and believe to win something and the next three games you lose, then of course this is the right of the fans.”
The post-match messaging fails to hit fan notes
There is a clear philosophical thread running through Rohl’s post-match messaging, control what you can control, avoid external blame, and internalise defeat.
In principle, that is modern, composed management.
But at Rangers, a club where margins in decisive matches are often shaped by fine officiating calls, momentum swings, and intimidatory fan pressure, that approach can also feel detached from supporter expectation.
The issue is not whether Rohl is correct to avoid outright confrontation with referees.
Many elite coaches do the same.
The issue is balance, and whether there is any willingness at all to publicly challenge moments that visibly alter matches.
On this occasion, there were at least two flashpoints that will be debated by supporters.
A first goal that some believe involved interference in an offside position, and an Alistair Johnston situation where a second yellow card was widely considered plausible.
Neither were meaningfully interrogated by Rohl beyond brief, cautious acknowledgement.
That matters because Rangers managers are traditionally expected, rightly or wrongly, to defend the club’s interests in those moments.
Not as excuses for defeat, but as pressure applied in the broader ecosystem of Scottish football scrutiny.
Rohl instead defaulted to neutrality.
He emphasised not seeing incidents clearly, stressing acceptance.
He redirected attention back to Rangers’ own errors.
Read Rangers analysis
What is absent is any sense of edge, any willingness to lean into controversy when it arises, or to suggest standards must be consistent when margins go against his team.
Something Celtic and their staff do at any opportunity, to evident reward.
That creates a perception problem.
Even when valid grievances exist, they are not articulated.
Even when incidents are debatable, they are left unchallenged.
For a Rangers manager, particularly in the aftermath of an Old Firm defeat that ends their title race, that restraint can read less like professionalism and more like passivity.
Because at Ibrox, it is not only results that matter, but also the sense that the club will fight its corner when those results are shaped by contested moments.
On this evidence, Rohl does not appear inclined to do that.
