Honest Mistakes - SPFL Week 31
We bring the SFPL season up to date as regards our Virtual VAR series featuring the Yorkshire Whistler.
This covers Celtic’s win over Ross County, and another close call for The Rangers at Dens Park.
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
BACKGROUND - I outlined a framework to assess the impact of Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
19/03/22 Celtic vs Ross County
Incident 1
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 14th
Incident Hungbo blocks Jota’s cross Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/AvengingAngel10/status/1505205790822514689?s=20&t=jiMyEbfnJr9o6PZQ6i3BbQ
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision – No foul committed
Jota goes to cross, and ball appears to hit outstretched arm of Ross County player.
Bit of a head scratcher here for me, as I cannot quite fathom how this was not awarded as a handball? The referee is well positioned only 18 yards from play. Despite the proximity of the Ross County defender to the ball when it was played, there can no logical explanation to interpret the accidental handball as a natural movement. The defender has his arm raised at the 10-o clock position and he is stood upright. There is simply no reason for his arm to be raised that high naturally.
Verdict: Incorrect decision. Handball/penalty kick should have been awarded.
Expected Points
Outcome
Celtic -0.55 xPts
Explainer: Celtic were 1-0 up at the time. A goal in the 14th minute would add 0.7 to Celtic’s xPts. As it would have been a penalty and the chances of scoring are always 79%, we multiply 0.7 by 0.79.
Incident 2
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 28th
Incident Ramsey tackles Rogic Outcome Foul to Celtic, RC to Ramsey Evidence (7) Celtic 4-0 Ross County | Giakoumakis hat-trick Helps Stretch Lead at the Top | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 2:54
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Ramsey fully commits to a challenge on Rogic and takes everything. An interesting incident and another one where viewing the challenge in real time and then watching the footage slowed down, can lead you to differing conclusions.
The referee is in close proximity to the challenge which is good but Rogic’s body is fully obscuring the referee’s view so he cannot be certain of the exact contact. From his position he probably feels Ramsey has launched into the challenge, views this as reckless (yellow card criteria) but also feels it is using excessive force and endangers Rogic’s player safety (red card criteria). In real time I can see why the red card was shown.
However, when you slow the incident down, you can feel an element of sympathy with Ramsey. He leans back into the challenge which causes his side facing right foot to expose his studs when attempting to play the ball. This then gives the appearance in real time of a ‘two footed, off the ground’ challenge. In actual fact his left foot is still planted on the ground and the studs from his right foot, don’t go over the ball but instead actually make contact with the ball first. It's then his overall body momentum which makes the contact with Rogic and causes to Rogic fall to the ground. I feel this meets the criteria of a reckless challenge (yellow card) but doesn’t quite make it an excessive force/endangering opponent (red card) incident.
As a player, if you commit to the challenge the way Ramsey does, you are making the referee make a heat of the moment decision within seconds and having only one view of the challenge.
Verdict: Incorrect decision. Although I do not necessarily feel the referee made an obvious error at the time, with the benefit of video replay footage, I believe a yellow card would have been the expected outcome rather than a red card.
Expected Points
Outcome
Celtic +0.35 xPts
Incident 3
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 60th
Incident Iacovitti deemed to handle in the box Outcome Penalty to Celtic Evidence (7) Celtic 4-0 Ross County | Giakoumakis hat-trick Helps Stretch Lead at the Top | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 4:00
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Handball and penalty kick awarded.
Iacovitti jumps to contest a headed ball with a Celtic player and misjudges the flight of the ball. He turns his back to the ball and as his body starts its downward trajectory after jumping, he then raises his right arm in an unnatural ‘L-shape’ position.
This is accidental contact but like the first handball incident reviewed this week, I cannot justify the arm position being considered ‘natural’ specific to that players situation.
Verdict: Correct decision to penalise the hand ball and award the penalty kick.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
20/03/22 Dundee vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee Bobby Madden Game Minute 42nd
Incident Dundee defender goes down in box under challenge from Morelos Outcome Penalty to TRFC and YC to Dundee defender Evidence (7) Dundee 1-2 Rangers | Goldson's Late Winner Keeps Title Hopes Alive | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 1:24
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Rangers and yellow card shown to Dundee player.
It took me several views of this incident to understand why a penalty was awarded to Rangers here, so clearly it is not a straightforward incident. I believe the penalty & subsequent yellow card is shown for a perceived ‘shirt pull’ on Morelos by the Dundee defender.
Upon my first 2/3 viewings I could only see the upper body contact made by Morelos into the Dundee defender. I believe what then happens is that the Dundee player feels off balance due to this contact and instinctively grabs Morelos shirt for a second as he falls to the ground. I suspect the referee sees the extended shirt of Morelos being pulled and then awards the penalty.
If this was the only contact made by either player then okay, although the impact to Morelos movement is minimal, by letter of law correct decision.
However, he appears to ignore or not see the initial contact made by Morelos arms into the back of the Dundee player that then causes the player to reach out and grab the shirt.
For me, in real time, I suspect I would be saying to both players ‘get on with, both at it etc.’ and would not have awarded a foul either way. However, if I see the shirt pull, I must also see the Morelos push which happened first and therefore must award the free kick to the defender for the first offence rather than award the penalty to Rangers.
Verdict; Incorrect decision. Two potential expected outcomes, neither of which would have been a penalty to Rangers. Either no foul either way, or the penalise the push and give the defensive free kick.
Expected Points
Outcome
TRFC +0.47
Explainer: Dundee were 1-0 up at the time. A goal in the 42nd minute would add 0.6 to TRFC’s xPts. As it would have been a penalty and the chances of scoring are always 79%, we multiply 0.6 by 0.79.
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
Three wrong calls out of four by the MIBs. This is disappointing to see as the title race reaches its climax. Such a tense title denouement deserves better.
Again, the professional, expert in the laws and independent perspective is very much at odds with the Scottish media portrayal of those decisions. Indeed, if you read back over the 14-article series of Yorkshire Whistler reviews, you will not find a verdict bordering on the incredulous so much as the description of Robertson’s failure to give Celtic a penalty against Ross County for the Hungo hand ball. The YW always tries to give the referees the benefit of the doubt.
Such a glaring error at a key moment in the match (it was only 1-0) was completely ignored by BBC highlights and thus missed the usual 4-day microscope treatment across the other media outlets!
It will be an interesting run in, for sure.
Movement in the overall xPts position then as Celtic get the benefit on one call and not on another, and The Rangers receive a huge break at Dens Park.
After this week’s errors, Celtic have 3.64 LESS Points than expected and The Rangers have 1.47 MORE points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes.
The overall difference, therefore, is 5.11 points.
Celtic currently lead by 3 points with seven matches left.