Honest Mistakes: Leading the Witness
A critical game as regards the title battle this week as Celtic travelled to the soft play centre otherwise known as Ibrox. The SFA played it safe, putting their best guy in charge, John Beaton.
The impact of big calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
07/04/24 The Rangers vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee John Beaton Game Minute 31st Score At Time 0-1
Incident Maeda flicks in a header and Goldson intercepts Outcome No decision; Penalty to Celtic for handball following VAR review Evidence BBC iPlayer - Sportscene - Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 9:54
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: No foul but after VAR review, penalty awarded to Celtic for handball
Cross comes into box and Maeda’s glancing header hits Goldson before Butland falls on the ball. Initially there does not appear to be any penalty shouts from the Celtic players but after VAR review, a penalty is awarded as the ball hits Goldson’s elbow.
Clearly the handball contact is accidental so the consideration next is whether this accidental contact constitutes a foul in terms of, was his body shape made unnaturally larger that is not justifiable by his movement for that specific situation.
In Goldson’s defence he is already jumping as Maeda’s heads on so is in mid-flight. His body is already in motion away from the deflected flight of the ball so he almost instinctively reaches out with the right hand side of his body. However in doing so he only manages to make contact with his right elbow extended. I cannot rationalise this being justifiable as the rest of his body is moving away from the ball. Difficult to spot in real time by the on field referee, but ultimately, once spotted by VAR, the penalty decision was the correct one.
Verdict: CORRECT DECISION
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee John Beaton Game Minute 51st Score At Time 0-2
Incident Silva goes down in the box under challenge from Johnston Outcome Foul to Celtic and YC to Silva for simulation; VAR Review TRFC penalty Evidence BBC iPlayer - Sportscene - Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 17:24
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Silva is cautioned for simulation but after VAR review, this caution is rescinded and a penalty awarded for the foul.
An interesting incident to say the least here. Silva looks to take on the Celtic defender. In real time Johnston looks to have played the ball first before Silva’s thigh connects with Johnston’s trailing right leg that is extended as part of the initial block. Silva goes to ground quite easily and the on field referee believes this is an act of simulation and cautions Silva for unsporting behaviour.
Upon watching the VAR clip, I found it very surprising that the on-field referee was not shown the initial touch that Johnston got the ball first. This makes me question did the referee have all the relevant information provided to him at the time of the review.
From the media’s replay footage Johnston clearly contacts the ball first and any secondary contact between the two players is minimal and what I would class in this particular incident as natural player momentum/expected contact. I believe you can argue a case that Silva feels this contact and goes to ground as many players do, and so it is not an act of simulation as such and that the caution is harsh.
But I cannot understand how this decision is over turned as Johnston clearly makes contact with the ball first with his right foot.
Verdict: INCORRECT DECISION. Initial on field decision to not penalise the tackle was correct. No foul committed.
Expected Points
Outcome
TRFC +0.46 xPts
Celtic -0.46 xPts
Incident 3
Referee John Beaton Game Minute 56th Score At Time 1-2
Incident Iwata is challenged by Iwata and Dessers scores from the breakaway Outcome Goal to TRFC; overturned to free kick to Celtic upon VAR review Evidence BBC iPlayer - Sportscene - Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 20:04
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers, but after VAR review play is brought back for a foul by Rangers in the build-up.
Rangers appear to score a legitimate goal but there is a question over a foul in the build-up. For me Iwata is clearly fouled by Lawrence, as the Rangers player catches him on the inside of the right knee after stretching for and missing the ball.
The question mark over the validity of the goal now links back to, how far back does a VAR review when looking at the attacking phase of play (known as APP).
Current IFAB guidance on the use of VAR states: For decisions relating to goals , the attacking phase of play will be reviewed which led directly to the incident, this includes how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play.
There is no defined maximum time limit to review retrospectively, so although this particular incident did seem to go on for quite a while before the goal was eventually scored, the correct outcome was reached to penalise the Lawrence foul, as this unfairly caused the change of which team had possession.
Verdict: CORRECT DECISION
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
I too was taken aback by the process that was followed by the VAR, Nick Walsh, in seemingly leading John Beaton to overturn his “diving” decision and award a penalty to The Rangers in the second half.
I asked the Yorkshire Whistler a supplementary question: “What should have happened re the penalty VAR review please?”
Here is his response:
“If VAR decides a clear and obvious error has been made, after review they communicate that an OFR (On Field Review) is recommended. VAR will describe what will be shown on the TV replay. The referee is then recommended to review the footage in question. The referee will then make the final decision based on his or her own perception and information provided by the VAR.
So in this scenario, if the VAR has made the decision to request the on field referee looks only at the secondary contact and not the initial challenge and contact made on the ball, it will unsurprisingly influence the referees decision, under the gun so to speak, in that live situation.
I’m struggling to understand why the full incident wasn’t played back to the referee during the OFR.”
So, there we have it - “struggling to understand”.
A crass analogy – I punch you, you punch me back. All of it caught on film. The jury is only shown the footage of you punching me. You go down, I walk away. Would you consider that fair?
In this instance, Walsh has chosen to begin the VAR replay the milli second after Johnston touches the ball in challenge. What Beaton is repeatedly shown is Silva in midair and Johnston’s boot touching his leg. Thus, removing all prior context from the challenge. We know this as Sky TV showed the VAR images in real-time. It could be labelled “leading the witness” to a conclusion. I am sure it is simply an incompetent application of the VAR process.
But I’m also “struggling to understand” why those incompetent applications, when analysed over years, tend to lead to assisting the same beneficiary.
In terms of the overall position:
The Rangers are estimated to have 1.30 MORE expected points and Celtic 1.83 LESS expected points due to the impact of Honest Mistakes.
The Rangers are benefiting by an estimated 3.13 xPts due to the impact of honest mistakes.
Celtic lead by one point having played one game more.