Andrew Dallas hit the headlines over the weekend, awarding four penalties in Rangers’ favour as they swept past St Mirren 4-0.

Jmaes Tavernier netted twice and hit the post with another, with Jermain Defoe also finding the back of the net from 12 yards.

Steven Gerrard argued that they could have had a fifth as Alfredo Morelos was pulled to the ground late in the second half but we look at each of those given;

The St Mirren players appeal to referee Andrew Dallas after Rangers' are awarded their second penalty this afternoon. Picture: SNS/Alan Harvey

Penalty No.1

There were few complaints about the first penalty as Defoe was felled by Ethan Erhahon.

Anderson said: “It looks like a pretty clear pen and the referee is well placed to give it.”

Penalty No.2

Again Defoe was involved in winning the penalty, this time stumbling past St Mirren full-back Paul McGinn. The incident was far more contentious and one Anderson felt Dallas got wrong.

“It’s possible that there was some contact beforehand”, he said, “but McGinn was pulling out of it and Defoe’s right foot catches in the turf which is what causes him to go over.

“He didn’t even really look for it and Dallas appeared to be looking through some bodies.”

Penalty No.3

This was a very tricky decision for Dallas and his assistant on the nearside who the referee consulted before opting for a penalty rather than free-kick.

The decision highlights how difficult a referee’s job can be. Even after a number of views of the handball at different speeds, there is no definitive answer.

Anderson explained that while the handball first occurred outside the box it can still be a penality if it continues into the area.

He said: “It is definitely a handball - Tansey raises his arms up and out from his body to try to block the ball. In real time, it looks like it’s in the box, but you can see from the still image that the first contact with his hand is about half a yard outside the box.

“He does continue to be in contact with the ball as it continues into the box - it sort of gets tangled up in his body. It’s not clear from any of the angles which part of the body this contact is with - if it was his hand or arm then it would be a penalty since any offence which starts outside the box but continues into the box should be punished with a penalty.

“However, given that we can’t tell from several angles where it hit, it seems unlikely that either official could have known either. Based on Dallas’ body language, I think he was originally going to give a free-kick, but then changed it to a penalty after discussion with his assistant - who should have been well placed to see it.

“On the balance of probabilities, I think this was the wrong decision.”

Penalty No.4

The fourth incident is another which was difficult for Dallas and his assistant. It is another situation of an offence occurring outside the box and possibly continuing into the area.

Yet, Anderson feels this is more clear cut in that the foul on Daniel Candeieas stops before the line.

“This should also have been a free-kick rather than a penalty,” he said. “The St Mirren player clearly has a grab of his leg on the edge of the box, which is a foul, but at the same time Candeias definitely dives - the way he falls with his hands outstretched is completely unnatural.

“The contact all appears to be outside the box, but the first time I saw the side angle I was fooled into thinking that the defender had grabbed Candeias’ shorts inside the box.

“It was only when I watched for a second time that I realised that his shorts just moved rather than being tugged. Again, I think the assistant may have given this one - Dallas originally appears to signal for a free-kick, but then very quickly changes it to a penalty.”

• Craig Anderson is a former fully qualified referee. He is also the man behind SPL Stats on Twitter.

Ref review: Why Rangers should have only been awarded one of the four penalties