Honest Mistakes - Week 2
Week two of the SPFL and another round of big calls.
Let’s get fell in.
The impact of that call being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
06/08/22 Ross County vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 65th
Incident Hart pushes over Tillson in the penalty area Outcome No decision Evidence (4) Ross County 1-3 Celtic | Furuhashi, Jenz & Abada Goals Seal The Three Points | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 2:39
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Hart pushes Tillson after making a save
Initial on field decision: No foul
Spotlight here falls on goalkeeper Joe Hart’s actions shortly after making a save. He quickly jumps to his feet and looks to sprint to the edge of his box and potentially launch a swift counter attack by playing the ball long, with Ross County players out of position.
Tillson steps into his path and so Hart raises his arm to clear his way. Tillson knows what he is doing in terms of blocking Hart off, to prevent the quick release of the ball.
This is one of those areas of the game where goalkeepers seem to have a little bit more leeway than outfield players. By that I mean, if you saw and outfield player raise his arm to push a player out the way, you would expect a direct free kick to be awarded.
But with goalkeepers in this scenario, the outfield player (Tillson in this example) runs the risk of falling foul of Law 12 Fouls & Misconduct – Indirect free kick:
*prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
So, if Hart was to be penalised for the push, this would be cancelled out by virtue of the earlier offence being committed by the outfield player.
So, in reality what tends to play out, is that the referee will look to just let the game flow and allow an element of ‘defensive contact’ by the goalkeeper as part of his attempt to play the ball. Provided this is the only contact, the game usually plays out as normal without stoppage.
On this basis, I am happy that no foul is committed and would have also let play continue.
Verdict: Correct decision – no foul committed.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Don Robertson Game Minute 84th
Incident Jenz goes into the crowd after scoring Outcome No decision Evidence (4) Ross County 1-3 Celtic | Furuhashi, Jenz & Abada Goals Seal The Three Points | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 3:00
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Jenz scores and goes to crowd having already been booked
Initial on field decision: No foul committed.
Having already received caution earlier in the game, Jenz scores for Celtic before running towards the crowd and gets mobbed pitch side. The question is, should Jenz have been sent off for a second yellow card, due to his celebration.
Let’s look at the current wording found in Law 12: Fouls & Misconduct – Disciplinary Action:
Celebration of a goal
Players can celebrate when a goal is a scored, the celebration must not be excessive & must not cause excessive time wasting.
Leaving the field of play to celebrate a goal is not a cautionable offence but players must return as soon as possible.
A player must be cautioned for:
*climbing onto a perimeter fence and/or approaching spectators in a manner which causes safety and/or security issues
* acting in a provocative, derisory, or inflammatory way
* removing the shirt
As a football person in general, I know for both players & spectators alone, the sense of joy and euphoria when your team scores is unrivalled and I would not want to disconnect players & fans from sharing these precious moments.
I do not feel that Jenz met the criteria above and would not looked to have cautioned him.
He approaches the boardings, but crucially does not step on or over them. It is more of a case of his proximity to the boardings, coupled with their low height, then allowing spectators to reach over and embrace with him. His actions are not derisory or inflammatory either.
Verdict: Correct decision to not caution the celebration.
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
06/08/22 – The Rangers vs Kilmarnock
Incident 1
Referee Kevin Clancy Game Minute
Incident Power appears to hand ball in the box Outcome No decision Evidence (4) Rangers 2-0 Kilmarnock | Goals From Colak and Morelos Seal Home Win For Rangers | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 3:05
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict The ball hits Power in the penalty area
Initial on field decision: No foul committed
The Rangers player crosses the ball from left and it hits the first Kilmarnock player and then ricochets onto what appears to be the arm of the covering defender.
As this is first hand ball incident scrutinised so far this season, lets recap what the current IFAB laws state:
It is an offence if the player:
*deliberately touches the ball with hand/arm for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
* touches the ball with hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm, is not a consequence or justifiable by the players body movement for that specific situation
* scores in the opponents goal directly from their hand/arm even if accidental or
* scores immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm even if accidental.
So, we will be using this framework to consider if handball incidents seen in the coming season should be penalised or not.
In short, it was correct not to award this as a handball offence.
The player who’s arm the ball hit, is at very close proximity and can’t anticipate the contact of his teammate. His body shape is moving towards his goal and his arm is pointed straight down (natural body shape) and just as the ball hits him, he attempts to bring his arm behind his body to avoid the contact (not making the body shape unnaturally bigger)
Verdict: Correct decision not to penalise the contact as handball
Expected Points
Outcome
No impact
Incident 2
Referee Kevin Clancy Game Minute 88th
Incident Morelos scores for TRFC Outcome Goal to TRFC Evidence (4) Rangers 2-0 Kilmarnock | Goals From Colak and Morelos Seal Home Win For Rangers | cinch Premiership - YouTube
At 3:45
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict Morelos scores for Rangers
Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers
ORIGINAL VERDICT: Morelos onside at last point of contact, correct decision to award goal.
Amended Decision (12/08/22)
I thought I had fully digested the latest clarification around what is deemed a ‘deflection’ and what is deemed ‘deliberate play’ in relation to the current guidance around Law 11 offside.
When I appraised the footage yesterday, I was assessing based on my interpretation that the defender had demonstrated ‘deliberate play’ by attempting to clear the ball as listed below.
The guidance states:
‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
• passing the ball to a team-mate; or
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).
However, full disclosure, I had not fully digested the footnote underneath this passage:
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air.
Re-evaluating my original conclusion using this updated framework, I have to now conclude that the defender did not have time to coordinate his movement i.e he was instinctively stretching.
Therefore, his contact should now be recategorized as a deflection and not deliberate play. I am also more confident have watched the footage many times over that the last contact was made by the defender.
On this basis, I would like to change my verdict to that of an incorrect decision:
Morelos should have been adjudged offside and the goal should not have stood.
I can only apologise to your readers for incorrectly interpreting current IFAB guidance.
It just goes to show even an experienced, active referee can still get caught out with the frequent updates and guidance notes now being applies to the Laws of the Game!
Consider today a school day for me ;)
Verdict: Incorrect decision to award the goal. Offside and free kick to Kilmarnock.
Expected Points
Outcome
TRFC +0.2 xPts
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler. Fine form as always and it takes a fully functioning human to admit an error. All the faultless ones can throw rocks.
Four calls this week from the Men In Black and one wrong. Some homework for the officials on the new amendments.
Slight change to the Expected Points position, then.
The Rangers have 0.45 LESS points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes.
The top two are level on points after 2 games.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE WAS AMENDED ON 12TH AUGUST FOLLOWING NEW GUDIANCE ON OFFSIDE BEING ISSUED IN JULY 2022 THAT CHANGED THE MORELOS OFFSIDE DECISION VERSUS KILMARNOCK.