Honest Mistakes - Livingston away, Morelos offside, to week 30
This covers the big decisions that take us up to the end of game week 30.
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
BACKGROUND - I outlined a framework to assess the impact of Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
27/02/22 The Rangers vs Motherwell
Incident 1
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 55th
Incident Morelos scores and disallowed for offside Outcome Offside and free kick to Motherwell Evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5k2gyVNSbs&list=PLAmNSUlUap5uumhjxRAKKe7OfxCf0K0E2&index=3&t=122s
At 02:30
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: No goal awarded. Offside and free kick awarded to Motherwell
Cross is swung over from the left-hand side and Morelos volleys home from 12 yards out. Assistant’s flag is immediately raised for the offside.
Despite Morelos’ protests, a couple of views of this incident backs up the assistant’s decision. The Motherwell back line, made up of 8 players at the time of the cross, all seem to be in sync & Morelos appears to appear half a yard offside as the pass is made.
Verdict: Correct decision to disallow the goal.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 67th
Incident Morelos scores and disallowed for offside Outcome Offside and free kick to Motherwell Evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5k2gyVNSbs&list=PLAmNSUlUap5uumhjxRAKKe7OfxCf0K0E2&index=3&t=122s
At 02:53
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: No goal awarded. Offside and free kick awarded to Motherwell
This decision appears to be even tighter than the first disallowed goal.
The Rangers number 14 hits an intricate pass through 4 Motherwell plays into the feet of Morelos, who is narrowly adjudged offside at the point of contact from the pass.
The video footage presented is not at the best angle, but if you pause the footage, it would appear Morelos body shape makes his feet level with the last Motherwell defender. What is inconclusive is the upper body positioning. The Motherwell player’s feet are set further back than his upper body as he is starting move forward, whereas Morelos is heading towards the goal and is moving forward. This would suggest his upper body could well have been further forward than his feet and as a result, the part of his body that could have been adjudged to be offside.
In all honesty this footage is not conclusive one way or the other. Even with VAR assessing this kind of marginal call, the correct decision would be decided in mere millimetres either way.
Verdict: I will side with the assistant referee on this one. Based on Morelos upper body’s likely position, I feel the offside decision was probably the correct decision.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
05/03/22 The Rangers vs Aberdeen
Referee John Beaton Game Minute 81st
Incident Roofe scores for TRFC Outcome Goal to TRFC Evidence (7) Rangers 1-0 Aberdeen | Late Roofe Strike Moves Gers Level with Celtic | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 03:57
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Goal awarded.
(On Bassey contact with Ramsey in the build-up):
There is a mutual coming together as both players slightly misjudge the flight of the ball that passes over both heads. Yes, the Rangers player makes slight contact with the Aberdeen defender as he jumps for the ball but there is not enough in it for me to feel that a foul was committed. One of the many ‘contact made but not enough for a foul’ challenges that you will see dozens of a time in any given game of football.
Kamara plays a cross in the Aberdeen box, which gets headed goal wards. It hits the Rangers number 17 and then deflects onto Roofe who scores from close range.
The Aberdeen players instantly appeal for a handball but the goal stands. They believe the ball hit the Rangers player on the hand, prior to it deflecting to Roofe.
Having watched the incident several times over, I am satisfied with the decision to allow the goal to stand.
The rationale for this decision comes from the latest IFAB wording around what is deemed to be a handball offence and what is not. A topic I comment on most weeks to be fair.
To summarise - accidental handballs are not a free kick offence unless they meet certain criteria.
The Rangers forward body wasn’t made unnaturally bigger, his arm is in, towards his body.
The law states that it would be handball offence if the player who handles the ball scores in the opponent’s goal directly from their hand/arm or immediately after it touches their hand, and they score.
Basically, if the Rangers number 17 had scored himself from the accidental handball, the goal would have been correctly chalked off for offside.
But as it was Roofe who scored, the way the hand ball law is currently worded, the decision to award the goal was correct.
Verdict: Correct decision
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
06/03/22 Livingston vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 14th
Incident Ball hits Fitzwater’s on arm in box Outcome Penalty to Celtic, YC to Fitzwater Evidence (7) Livingston 1-3 Celtic | Daizen Maeda & James Forrest Maintain Lead for Celtic! | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 0:27
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Celtic & yellow card shown to Fitzwater.
As Maeda attempts to drill the ball goal wards, Fitzwater who is already on the floor from the first defensive block, extends his prone body in a follow up attempt to block the pass. It hits his left hand which is connected to the floor and the referee sees this as hand ball and gives the penalty.
Although this contact is clearly accidental, I can understand why the referee awarded the penalty. Fitzwater’s body is moving forward to block the shot and his arm is rooted behind his body touching the floor. If his extended arm is not there then the ball would have got through as intended. I feel this meets the definition of making his body unnaturally bigger and IS NOT justifiable from his movement for that specific situation.
Once the penalty decision is made, the yellow card is also the expected outcome as the penalised handball stopped a promising attack (given it happened inside the 18-yard box) so a caution was correct decision.
Verdict: Correct decision
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 17th
Incident Celtic score from corner through Maeda Outcome Goal to Celtic Evidence (7) Livingston 1-3 Celtic | Daizen Maeda & James Forrest Maintain Lead for Celtic! | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 1:27
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Celtic
The point of contention with this passage of play, is not the goal itself but rather a corner was incorrectly awarded in the build up to the corner decision.
It appears that the ball hits the Celtic player on the arm last before it crosses the bye line and so a goal kick should have been awarded. However, if we are applying current VAR protocols that we are seeing in the English Premier League to this incident, then goal should still have stood.
VAR usage is not currently used to determine ‘ins & outs’ from throw ins, corner kick and goal kick decision. These decisions are solely down to the referee and assistant referees.
So, unfortunately, once an incorrect decision is made in this area, unless the referee over rules his assistant’s decision before play is resumed, once the corner kick is taken, no further decisions can be taken to change the corner kick decision made.
Verdict: Correct decision to award the goal. Although common sense says the corner decision itself was wrong
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 3
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 39th
Incident Ball hits Fitzwater’s on arm in box Outcome No decision Evidence BBC iPlayer - Sportscene - 2021/22: 06/03/2022
At 10:25
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: No foul committed
Fitzwater goes to block the Celtic shot and the ball deflects off his teammate and his own foot before also hitting his arm.
Straight forward decision here. It’s accidental and his arm is front of his body, not stretched out unnaturally wider. His body movement seems natural, and he simply can’t react in time to the deflections.
Accidental handball, nothing else.
Verdict: Correct decision – no foul committed.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 4
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 46th
Incident Celtic score through an own goal Outcome Goal to Celtic Evidence BBC iPlayer - Sportscene - 2021/22: 06/03/2022
At 11:20
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Celtic
The point of contention here is that there may have been a hand ball committed by the Celtic midfielder in the centre circle in the build-up.
Having watched the footage, I am satisfied no offence is committed. Not for the first time today, we are looking at a handball that is clearly accidental and because of the ball bouncing up at close range from the Livingston player first and then hits the Celtic player on the elbow, as he is moving forward. Nothing to make me think unnaturally bigger body position.
Verdict: Correct decision to not penalise as a handball, goal stands.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
A great week for the MIB’s and this has to be acknowledged as they achieved a clean sweep of correct decisions.
Not that you would know this from the highly selective and coordinated messaging within the more mainstream press.
Expected Points Table
The Expected Points table is therefore unchanged following these matches:
At the end of week 30, based on xPts, Celtic have 3.44 less points than expected due to Honest Mistakes and The Rangers have 1 more point than expected.
That is a 4.44 xPts swing.
Celtic are 3 points ahead in the league table after this set of fixtures.