Honest Mistakes - League Cup Semi-Finals Special
Whilst the league was on hold as the League Cup Semi- Finals played out at sodden Hampden, the Yorkshire Whistler thought he had a week off. “But they keep pulling me back in!“ Such is the refreshing and novel approach the SFA take to implementing VAR in Scotland, there is the need for a League Cup special edition. Overtime cyber pints necessary for the intrepid Yorkshire Whistler. The impact of a call being incorrect can be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
14/01/23 Celtic vs Kilmarnock
Incident 1
Referee Willie Collum Game Minute 48th Score At Time 1-0
Incident Juranovic shot hits Taylor and rebounds to Hatate who scores Outcome Offside against Hatate. Free kick to Kilmarnock Evidence (1) Celtic 2-0 Kilmarnock | Maeda & Giakoumakis Send Celts into Final! | Viaplay Cup Semi-Final - YouTube At 2:14
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Juranovic shot blocked by Taylor and ball falls to Hatate who then scores Initial on field decision: Goal disallowed for offside Interesting first clip to review here, as not the most straight forward passage of play. Juranovic hits a shot that is blocked by a Kilmarnock defender and then lands at the feet of Hatate who then scores. Now Hatate, is stood in an offside position when the initial shot is struck and so, in the older versions of the offside law, it would be a relatively straight forward decision of – yes he is offside. However, as we know the offside laws have been re-worded a couple of times in recent seasons and we now have the subjective mine field to navigate of determining what constitutes the offside player actually becoming ‘active’ or not. Active is punishable as an offside offence, non-active then no offside offence committed. Law 11 states that the offside player is only penalised as being active if: “They gain an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has rebounded or been deflected off an opponent BUT a player stood offside who receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is Not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by the opponent.” As the Kilmarnock defender goes to block the initial shot, the referee needs to distinguish if this action constitutes a. a deflection or b. deliberate attempt to play the ball. For clarity ‘deliberate play’ is when the player has control of the ball with possibility of passing to a teammate or gaining possession of the ball or clearing the ball (e.g., heading or kicking it away). Applying this context to the initial block, I would say the Kilmarnock defender’s actions constitute a block/deflection as opposed to an act of deliberate play. Considering the distance between player & shot, lack of time to co-ordinate movement and the instinctive stretching motion, I would not consider this an act of deliberate play. On this basis feel it was the correct decision to disallow the goal as Hatate was ‘active’ at the time of the initial shot. Verdict: Correct decision to disallow the goal. ADDENDUM CBN – I pointed out to the YW that the Law 11 contains a loophole as follows: “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. "A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)." That is – because Taylor blocked the shot with his arm, albeit unintentionally, the effect is to render Hatate onside. YW Response - I wholeheartedly agree the wording is poor and what should be black and white, becomes ambiguous and subjective at times. This ultimately sees different interpretations which only adds to the confusion. The part of law 11 that you refer to does seem contradictory regarding a deliberate save EXCEPT BY HANDS/ARMS. As if it hits the defender’s arm, albeit accidental/deflected then does then mean the wording does not apply? I take the view of applying laws within ‘the spirit’ of the game and not applying loop holes or poorly worded definitions, which then allow a context to be provided whereby, a common-sense decision can be over ridden on a technicality, dependent on interpretation. The ‘spirit of the law’ here is not to penalise a genuine defensive action that then rewards a player already stood in an offside position, regardless of which part of his anatomy the accidental deflection came off – if that makes sense. However, I do acknowledge that the current wording of the law needs to be improved and make this kind of situation less confusing. Expected Points Outcome No impact
Incident 2
Referee Willie Collum Game Minute 93rd Score At Time 1-0
Incident Giakoumakis and Wright tangle in the box Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/graeme818/status/1614351466474479616?s=20&t=EvexvQxC3l0Me3s_l42cOQ
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Wright goes down in the box under a challenge from Giakoumakis Initial on field decision: No foul committed As Wright waits to receive the ball, he is closely marked by the Celtic man and they end up on the floor together. I would have liked a different angle of this contact as you can make an argument either way here. Giakoumakis makes some upper body contact as he is getting ‘touch tight’. This contact, in isolation, I don’t believe merits a foul and is relatively minor. However, Giakoumakis immediately after this then loses his balance and stumbles forward into Wright, whilst also wrapping his arms around the Kilmarnock player. It is this secondary contact and appearance of ‘dragging’ his opponent down that looks like it should have been penalised by a foul. Certainly, at full speed, it would have been difficult for the referee to be clear, but I suspect if VAR had deemed this a clear & obvious error and recommended an on-field review, then a penalty kick would have been awarded. Verdict: Incorrect decision. Foul committed and penalty kick expected outcome Expected Points Outcome Celtic +0.9 xPts
15/01/23 Aberdeen vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 87th Score At Time 1-1
Incident Barisic fouls Kennedy Outcome Foul to Aberdeen; YC to Barisic Evidence https://twitter.com/markmassie4372/status/1614931212526669824?s=20&t=EvexvQxC3l0Me3s_l42cOQ
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Barisic fouls Kennedy Initial on field decision: Foul and yellow card shown to Barisic. Another type of challenge that I imagine has split opinion. Barisic, in an attempt to win the ball stretches his leg through the air and catches the Aberdeen player first. This is clearly a reckless challenge and meets yellow card criteria. But should it have been upgraded to a red card for a challenge with excessive force/endangering players safety? I suspect the reason the referee does not give a red card is that he sees Barisic pull his leg back before going to extend it and hook the ball away. Barisic is not planting his studs in the leg of Kennedy, but it is rather the extension motion that grazes/clips Kennedy right knee. This makes him lose his balance. However, you cannot escape the fact that Barisic is coming in from behind and makes contact with Kennedy at knee high level, irrespective of level of actual contact made. For this reason, I believe Barisic has been slightly fortunate here. I suspect if VAR recommended an on-field review, the caution would have been upgraded to a sending off decision. Verdict: Incorrect decision (after some deliberation). Sending off the expected outcome Expected Points Outcome TRFC +0.7
Incident 2
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 93rd Score At Time 1-1
Incident Stewart fouls Sakala Outcome Foul to TRFC; RC to Stewart Evidence (1) Rangers 2-1 Aberdeen | Rangers Through To Final with Extra-Time Goal! | Viaplay Cup Semi-Final - YouTube At 5:20
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Stewart fouls Sakala Initial on field decision: Foul committed, and red card shown to Stewart. Stewart lunges into make a challenge and clearly catches Sakala, rather than the ball. 100% a reckless challenge but does this type of tackle also trigger the red card criteria of a tackle with excessive force/or endangering a player’s safety? In real time, I felt Stewart was slightly unlucky to be shown the red card. Yes, the challenge is late, but it is relatively low and he has eyes on the ball. It is not a two footed challenge. However, the slow-motion review does make it look slightly worse, mainly as Stewart’s extended leg catches Sakala knee high. Although the referee I believe could have ‘sold’ a yellow card decision, on review I do not feel the red card was wrong either. The type of tackle, that we sometimes refer to as an ‘orange card’ kind of challenge. More than a yellow, but not quite a red (if this only existed!) Verdict: Correct decision (just) Expected Points Outcome No impact
Incident 3
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 96th Score At Time 1-1
Incident Kent and Scales have an altercation off the ball Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/WalterNewtoo/status/1614744507001495554?s=20&t=EvexvQxC3l0Me3s_l42cOQ https://twitter.com/doc42/status/1614721598031798272?s=20&t=EvexvQxC3l0Me3s_l42cOQ
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Kent clashes with Scales off the ball Initial on field decision: No foul committed Kent & Scales are running towards the ball together and Kent inexplicably raises a hand in an open-handed punching/slapping motion. This is a clear act of violent conduct, regardless of the level of actual contact made. The referee is clearly looking at ball and does not see this action. But how VAR has not intervened is quite astonishing. This is the exactly the type of incident VAR was originally brought in for. Verdict: Incorrect decision. Red card to Kent for violent conduct the expected outcome. Expected Points Outcome TRFC +0.7
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler in this League Cup special. No impact on league points today, obviously. Once again, I would highlight the respective media treatments of the incidents in these matches. Many, supposedly responsible, commentators could not wait to lash Celtic supporters with the “paranoia” prop. This is the standard response to Celtic getting a rough deal on decisions. Some consider it clever to play the same card two different ways. Celtic fans are “paranoid” (i.e. suffer from some mental illness) if they dare query a dubious call. Simultaneously, when Celtic appear to have benefited from a dubious call, this must surely put a stop to the paranoia evident on all the calls that go against the club. World class pin dancing, Timmy. In the last 18 months, Celtic have had perhaps two calls that have benefitted them materially. Kyogo Furuhashi’s winning goal against Heart of Midlothian (YW ruled a goal on benefit of the doubt given there is no conclusive evidence of offside) and Giorgos Giakoumakis’s foul on Wright in the League Cup semi-final (YW ruled a penalty – just). And my goodness don’t we get to know about it! Crawford Allan mobilised, screams of where we can stuff our “paranoia” and Derek McInnes moaning for days on end. To be fair it is remarkable that Greg Aitken (VAR) from Kilmarnock did not give, errr, Kilmarnock a penalty. Some doth protest too much. Meanwhile, back to the absence of things. Aberdeen should have been playing nine players from The Rangers in extra time in the other semi-final. That is a big story, no? The BBC completely ignored both red card incidents in their web match report. The Daily Record tried to play down Kent’s assault on Scales thus:
“Replays showed that out-of-contract star (Kent) did raise his hands towards Scales, seemingly in frustration at being impeded.”
Poor lamb, I mean, who doesn’t hate being impeded? The highlight reels available from official channels also omitted both red card incidents against The Rangers players. Most telling is the YW’s reaction.
“But how VAR has not intervened is quite astonishing. This is the exactly the type of incident VAR was originally brought in for.”
“Quite astonishing” is as harsh an assessment as it gets from our mild mannered, patient and thorough professional expert. As far as we can tell, there was NO VAR scrutiny of the Kent assault, nor any request to review the Barisic tackle from behind on Kennedy. In fact, we were told on the day that VAR technology stopped working some time early in extra time. What impact, if any, did it have on these incidents late in normal time? Three days later and no indication the Compliance Officer is scrutinising Kent's assault despite both referee Walsh and VAR "missing" the incident. Now there’s a story worth pursuing.