Honest Mistakes - The End of 2022
Well, that (World Cup + Christmas + New Year) went very quickly.
At least I suspect that is what the Yorkshire Whistler thinks as I interrupted his well earned to review yet more critical calls from the top of the SPFL.
This edition covers matches from the 15th December until the last match of 2022.
The New Year Derby will be covered in a separate piece.
The impact of that call being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
15/12/22 The Rangers vs Hibernian
Incident 1
Referee Nick Walsh Game Minute 48th Score At Time 1-2
Incident Ball hits Sands in the box Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/McnameeBrenden/status/1603504447161655296?s=20&t=8SoGJjIViJ-aHl0lNQ6daA
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Ball hits the arm of Sands inside the penalty area.
Initial on field decision: No foul awarded.
High ball into the box is contested between the Rangers defender Sands and a Hibs player. As the ball drops Sands, in an attempt to head the ball, seems to misjudge the trajectory of the ball and it does, clearly hit his arm, albeit accidentally.
So, was his body shape made unnaturally larger in a way not expected as a consequence of his movement for that specific situation?
In my opinion, this would have been a very harsh decision to award the handball and penalty.
Firstly, both players are competing for the same space, have the eyes firmly upwards and as such Sands doesn’t anticipate a slight nudge in the chest by the opponent. This knocks him off balance enough for him to lose the flight of the ball, whilst he never breaks his concentration on where he thinks the ball will land.
If it wasn’t for this slight contact, I suspect the ball wouldn’t hit his arm and so I feel his adjusted body shape in mid-flight is natural for what has just happened
Verdict: Correct decision to not award the foul
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
20/12/22 Aberdeen vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee Willie Collum Game Minute 18th Score At Time 0-1
Incident Ball hits Tavernier in the box Outcome No decision Evidence Aberdeen 2-3 Rangers | Arfield brace completes astonishing last minute comeback | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 1:11
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Ball hits Tavernier in the box
Initial on field decision: No foul committed
Cross to the far post is contested between Tavernier & Aberdeen forward, and it looks like the ball might hit the top of the Rangers’ player’s arm/shoulder. Definitely unintentional contact and given the proximity of the Aberdeen player’s challenge, coupled with the fact that Tavernier’s arm is not extended as he competes for the ball, I am satisfied this does not meet the remit for unnaturally bigger body shape that cannot be explained by that situation.
Verdict: Correct decision not to award the foul.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Willie Collum Game Minute 90th Score At Time 2-2
Incident Ball hits Goldson and rolls to Arfield to score Outcome Goal to TRFC Evidence Aberdeen 2-3 Rangers | Arfield brace completes astonishing last minute comeback | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 4:36
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Ball hits Goldson and then deflects to Arfield to score
Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers
Cross reaches Goldson in box and ball hits him at top of arm/shoulder area. The ball then deflects to Arfield who scores from close range.
There are two different points to consider here for me when deciding if this goal should stand: a. did the referee deem this contact to be handball or not (i.e did it hit shoulder or arm?) and then b. the easier matter of confirming who the actual goal scorer is in this kind of incident.
In real time it appears that Goldson slightly extends his arm, and he attempts to control the ball. At first viewing it appears it might hit below, what is commonly referred to the ‘t-shirt line’. For clarity, law 12 states: For the purposes of determining handball offence, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
If the referee feels it hits him below this mark, then he then must decide if this is ‘accidental contact’ (no foul) or ‘accidental contact which has made his body unnaturally bigger and not a consequence by the player’s body movement for that specific situation’.
In slow motion, it does appear that Goldson initially starts to move his arm, before bringing it back into his body. This last-minute movement then makes me question did it hit his shoulder or upper arm? My gut feeling is that it still just hits his arm, so a potential ‘unnaturally larger’ decision now needs to be made which, on reflection, I would rule in Goldson’s favour. His arm is coming back in towards his bottom as part of his expected movement in trying to control the ball. This is natural and so no foul committed.
An interesting point to note here which links towards the second point of consideration (who scored the goal) is that this rationale would not apply if Goldson had scored the goal directly himself.
The same law also states: It is an offence if the player scores directly from his arm/hand, EVEN IF ACCIDENTAL or if the same player scores immediately after the ball has touched their own hand/arm EVEN IF ACCIDENTAL
In all honesty as a referee, I find this particular law of the game, more complex to interpret than others at times!
Put in simple terms the goal stands because Goldson’s contact would have been deemed accidental and he did not score from the contact directly himself, but the goal would have been disallowed if he had scored from the same accidental contact he had made.
Verdict: Correct decision to allow the goal to stand
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
21/12/22 Celtic vs Livingston
Incident 1
Referee Euan Anderson Game Minute 34th Score At Time 1-0
Incident Shot blocked by Devlin Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/Zeshankenzo/status/1606361191147765761?s=20&t=C7Q6fdVxwz0BdDCefLsFHw
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Ball hits Devlin in the box
Initial on field decision: No handball
Celtic player hits a shot from distance, Devlin blocks the shot, and it appears to hit his elbow whilst doing so.
It does hit his elbow, but in the defender’s favour, is that he is pulling his arms in, towards his body, as opposed to making his body shape unnaturally larger. His body momentum is also twisting slightly, which makes the elbow the first point of contact, rather than his back or side. I feel this would have been a harsh decision to award a penalty here and am satisfied to deem this accidental contact, body movement expected, not making himself unnaturally larger.
Verdict: Correct decision to not award the foul.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Euan Anderson Game Minute 71st Score At Time 2-1
Incident Abada scores for Celtic Outcome Goal awarded then overturned by VAR for offisde Evidence Celtic 2-1 Livingston | Furuhashi Helps League Leaders Restore Nine Point Lead | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 4:28
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Abada scores for Celtic
Initial on field decision: Goal initially awarded. VAR then over rules decision and the goal is disallowed for an offside infringement.
Abada latches onto a through pass after a slight deflection from a defender and is adjudged to have been offside as the initial pass is made. On review, the offside call is tight but straight forward enough. However, as the defender makes contact with the ball before Abada receives the ball, we now enter the less than crystal clear waters of deciding ‘when is an offside player deemed to be active (offside offence has occurred) as opposed to offside but inactive (no offside offence has occurred)’.
Law 11 states ‘the player in an offside position is only penalised as becoming active by:
• Preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball clearly or
• Challenging an opponent for the ball or
• Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts an opponent
• Making an obvious action which clearly impacts ability of opponent to play the ball
The same law also goes on to state:
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save (attempt to stop the ball going into or very close to the goal)
As with several laws, there is an element of personal interpretation here which I understand can be frustrating. So, my interpretation of events as they unfold is that Abada although stood offside, is not initially active. The central defender then goes to deliberately head the ball, uncontested but is aware of Abada’s presence and this effects his judgement. However, in my opinion, Abada’s movement is not that of an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of the opponent to play the ball & as the misjudged header was a deliberate attempt to play the ball, at least 18 yards out (i.e not close to the goal), I do not believe VAR should have intervened.
Verdict: Incorrect decision to rule out the goal. Goal should have stood.
Expected Points
Outcome
Celtic -0.25 xPts
23/12/22 Ross County vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 20th Score At Time 0-0
Incident Harmon heads for goal under challenge from Tavernier Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/FundilyMundelly/status/1606787247143108608?s=20&t=RhAlN1FmY4wjMtve09RGdg
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Harmon heads on goal challenged by Tavernier
Initial on field decision: No decision
Ross County swing a cross that goes over head of Tavernier, he then tilts around to kick the ball away, as the Ross forward is arriving to head the ball. There is a question of raised foot/reckless play by Tavernier in this passage of play, but his reaction is instinctive, and he does not make any contact with either ball or player. For me, not enough in this challenge to be worthy of a foul.
Verdict: Correct decision to not award a foul
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 50th Score At Time 0-1
Incident White goes down in the box under challenge from Goldson Outcome No decision Evidence https://twitter.com/Zeshankenzo/status/1606389728932204561?s=20&t=RhAlN1FmY4wjMtve09RGdg
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict White goes down in the box under challenge from Goldson
Initial on field decision: No decision
Goldson and a Ross player are challenging the for the ball and Ross County player is knocked slightly off balance by the Rangers defender. Yes, there is contact but nothing that for me merits a foul being awarded. No clear shirt pulls or infringement, just the defender getting ‘touch tight’ and making it difficult for the opponent to get an easy shot off on goal.
Verdict: Correct decision to not award the foul.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
24/12/22 Celtic vs Motherwell
Incident 1
Referee Kevin Clancy Game Minute 90th Score At Time 4-1
Incident Turnbull challenges for a high ball and fouls the keeper. Outcome YC for Turnbull and free kick St Johnstone. Overturned by VAR to a RC to Turnbull Evidence Celtic 4-1 St Johnstone | Furuhashi and Hatate claim braces | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 4:03
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Turnbull goes for a high cross. The keeper is caught and fouled. Turnbull initially receives a caution for the foul. VAR then intervene and the sanction is then upgraded to that of a sending off.
I can imagine this decision incensed the Celtic fans at the time, as in real time, it appears Turnbull is making a genuine attempt to play the ball and inadvertently catches the St Johnstone keeper. My first reaction, at full speed was a caution for reckless challenge was the correct outcome.
However, in VAR’s defence, I can see why after reviewing the footage, the challenge was upgraded. There is an element of trial by slow motion television here. Not clear at full speed, but evident when reviewing the footage is the height of Turnbull’s extended right foot, that catches the keeper in the face. Albeit accidental, he is kicking the face of the opposing keeper about five to six feet off the ground. This contact I believe meets the sending off criteria for ‘serious foul play’ of a reckless challenge that is also endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality’.
I would question if this incident was a clear and obvious error that warranted VAR, but once reviewed and analysed, the correct outcome is arrived at.
Verdict: Correct decision to award the sending off.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler and a Happy New Year to him, his family and whistlers everywhere!
The VAR process is only supposed to be invoked when the officials have made a clear and obvious error. This week’s honest mistake is remarkable in that the on-field officials appear to have made the right call in awarding a goal to Celtic scored by Liel Abada.
To then change that call to an incorrect one seems, well, again, remarkable.
As regards negative big all impacts since VAR was introduced in the SPFL, Celtic are certainly having a rough run of luck.
Up to the end of 2022, 23 big calls affecting the top two have been referred to the Yorkshire Whistler. Five have been proven incorrect and every one has had a negative impact on Celtic.
It will even up over the season, won’t it?
Fortunately for Celtic they keep winning regardless but the theoretical expected points model is now as follows:
Based on the in-match game state when the decisions were made (or not made), The Rangers have 1.08 MORE points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes and Celtic 4.12 LESS.
A swing of 5.2 xPts.
Celtic led by nine points after 19 matches.