Honest Mistakes – Christmas ’23 – “How Lucky Can You Get?”

At 1:01

The Hearts skipper head home at far post from a corner, relatively unmarked. In front of him, one of his teammates is jostling with two Celtic players, which probably creates the extra space he finds himself in. One of the defenders appeals for a foul here, but on review I cannot see anything wrong with the level of contact between the opposing players and do not see any foul committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to award the goal.

Outcome

At 1:20

The St Johnstone player’s first touch is a mis control and then in an attempt to win ball back, he makes an ill-judged stretch as Lundstram also arrives to challenge for the ball.

In real time, the referee had a call to make at full speed and my first thought was a reckless challenge was committed (yellow card offence).

However, on watching the VAR replay I do support this challenge being upgraded to a serious foul play incident with a challenge that endangers the players safety/excessive force (red card offence).

As he stretches his entirely body leaves the surface and so he is no longer in control of the tackle & where his extended leg will land, which in this case sees his studs catch Lundstram on the inside of his ankle.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to upgrade to a sending off offence.

Outcome

At 2:59

The Rangers number 9 tries to react first to a shot that is split by the opposing keeper, whilst also being closely marked by the defender. The St Johnstone player’s arm does momentarily come round the Dessers’ waist, but there does not appear to be any suggestion of a pull. Certainly nothing to warrant the theatrical fall of Dessers.

Verdict: CORRECT decision, no foul committed.

Outcome

At 4:37

Dessers again goes to ground, albeit in different circumstances. This time we see Dessers played through on goal and attempt to evade the onrushing keeper who throws himself at the ball. Unfortunately for the keeper, he gets nothing on the ball and does appear to catch the right leg of Dessers who needs no invitation to hit the ground again.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to award the penalty.

Outcome

At 3:25

Spencer tries to get in front of his man as the ball is cleverly flicked into his path by his teammate. Spencer uses his body to get in front of the Rangers defender before going to ground and appealing for a penalty.

In real time I suspected no foul had been committed here and the Var review backs this up. Spencer steps across his man and appears to be already off balance and going down in this first motion, before any minimal contact is made by the defender. I feel this a slightly desperate attempt to win a penalty and is correctly waved away by the on-field referee.

Verdict: CORRECT decision, no foul committed.

Outcome

Surprised VAR did not recommend an on-field review here, as Dessers clearly pulls back on the shirt of the Motherwell player and impacts his ability to challenge for the ball as it is parried by the Rangers keeper.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Penalty to Motherwell the expected outcome if the on-field referee had seen this incident on VAR’s request to review the clear, impactful shirt pull.

Outcome

At 9:20

Interesting clip to review here as we see Carter-Vickers adopting the age-old set piece tactic of, ‘get in front of keeper and try and put him off’. The defensive counter tactic to this, is to then see a defender position himself directly between his goalkeeper and player sent to ‘stand on the keeper’.

The role of CCV is not to win the ball but to unsettle the movement of the keeper and what then invariably happens, is barging and jostling between all 3, as the keeper does his best to protect his space.

CCV doesn’t appear to challenge for the ball, whereas the keeper is trying to stretch over CCV to punch/claim the ball as the ball is in the air.

It looks a bit scruffy, particularly as the ball is cleared away, as you see the keeper brush CCV away with his arm. The final swing of the arm is not aimed at CCV but looks like an exaggerated move away from the Celtic man if anything, as if to say I won that particular contest.

For me, having a natural feel for the game & having seen this kind of incident dozens of times in games, I would say no clear foul or advantage gained here, and to get on with it.

Verdict: CORRECT decision, no foul committed.

Outcome

At 16:15

Two possible hand ball shouts here following a ball into the Celtic box. Firstly, the initial ball is drilled straight at Taylor. The ball hits him on shoulder, but the force of the shot, sees his arm then swing out somewhat. In real time, this makes it appear a potential handball, but clearly it is not.

The deflection from Taylor then leads to the second potential hand ball decision. Scales & Welsh both look to react to the ball, Scales heads it straight into his teammate Welsh. This is a closer call, as the ball does appear to catch the extended arm of Welsh.

However, bearing in mind the close proximity to each other, the reduced reaction time available to Welsh, the fact his arm is already out, and he is in motion to block the ball, I would say to award a handball offence here would be incredibly harsh.

For me Welsh’s body shape, whilst unnaturally larger due to the arm extension, is totally expected and justifiable for this incident.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to not award the penalty.

Outcome