A critical game as regards the title battle this week as Celtic travelled to the soft play centre otherwise known as Ibrox. The SFA played it safe, putting their best guy in charge, John Beaton.
The impact of big calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
07/04/24 The Rangers vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee | John Beaton |
Game Minute | 31st |
Score At Time | 0-1 |
Incident | Maeda flicks in a header and Goldson intercepts |
Outcome | No decision; Penalty to Celtic for handball following VAR review |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 9:54 |
Incident 2
Referee | John Beaton |
Game Minute | 51st |
Score At Time | 0-2 |
Incident | Silva goes down in the box under challenge from Johnston |
Outcome | Foul to Celtic and YC to Silva for simulation; VAR Review TRFC penalty |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 17:24 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Initial on field decision: Silva is cautioned for simulation but after VAR review, this caution is rescinded and a penalty awarded for the foul.
An interesting incident to say the least here. Silva looks to take on the Celtic defender. In real time Johnston looks to have played the ball first before Silva’s thigh connects with Johnston’s trailing right leg that is extended as part of the initial block. Silva goes to ground quite easily and the on field referee believes this is an act of simulation and cautions Silva for unsporting behaviour. Upon watching the VAR clip, I found it very surprising that the on-field referee was not shown the initial touch that Johnston got the ball first. This makes me question did the referee have all the relevant information provided to him at the time of the review. From the media’s replay footage Johnston clearly contacts the ball first and any secondary contact between the two players is minimal and what I would class in this particular incident as natural player momentum/expected contact. I believe you can argue a case that Silva feels this contact and goes to ground as many players do, and so it is not an act of simulation as such and that the caution is harsh. But I cannot understand how this decision is over turned as Johnston clearly makes contact with the ball first with his right foot. Verdict: INCORRECT DECISION. Initial on field decision to not penalise the tackle was correct. No foul committed. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
TRFC +0.46 xPts
Celtic -0.46 xPts |
Incident 3
Referee | John Beaton |
Game Minute | 56th |
Score At Time | 1-2 |
Incident | Iwata is challenged by Iwata and Dessers scores from the breakaway |
Outcome | Goal to TRFC; overturned to free kick to Celtic upon VAR review |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: Rangers v Celtic
At 20:04 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers, but after VAR review play is brought back for a foul by Rangers in the build-up.
Rangers appear to score a legitimate goal but there is a question over a foul in the build-up. For me Iwata is clearly fouled by Lawrence, as the Rangers player catches him on the inside of the right knee after stretching for and missing the ball. The question mark over the validity of the goal now links back to, how far back does a VAR review when looking at the attacking phase of play (known as APP). Current IFAB guidance on the use of VAR states: For decisions relating to goals , the attacking phase of play will be reviewed which led directly to the incident, this includes how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play. There is no defined maximum time limit to review retrospectively, so although this particular incident did seem to go on for quite a while before the goal was eventually scored, the correct outcome was reached to penalise the Lawrence foul, as this unfairly caused the change of which team had possession. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
I too was taken aback by the process that was followed by the VAR, Nick Walsh, in seemingly leading John Beaton to overturn his “diving” decision and award a penalty to The Rangers in the second half.
I asked the Yorkshire Whistler a supplementary question: “What should have happened re the penalty VAR review please?”
Here is his response:
“If VAR decides a clear and obvious error has been made, after review they communicate that an OFR (On Field Review) is recommended. VAR will describe what will be shown on the TV replay. The referee is then recommended to review the footage in question. The referee will then make the final decision based on his or her own perception and information provided by the VAR.
So in this scenario, if the VAR has made the decision to request the on field referee looks only at the secondary contact and not the initial challenge and contact made on the ball, it will unsurprisingly influence the referees decision, under the gun so to speak, in that live situation.
I’m struggling to understand why the full incident wasn’t played back to the referee during the OFR.”
So, there we have it – “struggling to understand”.
A crass analogy – I punch you, you punch me back. All of it caught on film. The jury is only shown the footage of you punching me. You go down, I walk away. Would you consider that fair?
In this instance, Walsh has chosen to begin the VAR replay the milli second after Johnston touches the ball in challenge. What Beaton is repeatedly shown is Silva in midair and Johnston’s boot touching his leg. Thus, removing all prior context from the challenge. We know this as Sky TV showed the VAR images in real-time. It could be labelled “leading the witness” to a conclusion. I am sure it is simply an incompetent application of the VAR process.
But I’m also “struggling to understand” why those incompetent applications, when analysed over years, tend to lead to assisting the same beneficiary.
In terms of the overall position:
The Rangers are estimated to have 1.30 MORE expected points and Celtic 1.83 LESS expected points due to the impact of Honest Mistakes.
The Rangers are benefiting by an estimated 3.13 xPts due to the impact of honest mistakes.
Celtic lead by one point having played one game more.
David Martin says
Would be interested to hear what the whistler has to say about the flow of the game in general and the award of so many fouls to the rangers, almost at every contact.
Boxer180 says
I am actually more concerned that the referee awarded twice as many fouls as against Celtic. Celtic never got any close foul calls and this was underlined clearly when one those fouls was used by VAR to wipe out a Rangers goals. Can anyone honestly say that in this game Celtic were twice as dirty as Rangers. Nonsense. Referee had a howler.
John Quin says
Hi,
Very good feedback from the Yorkshire Whistler as usual.
One thing that annoys me is how the referees control our game by the number of fouls we commit compared to our opponents. Sunday’s game 23 to their 10. Even when we have 80 % to 90% possession in most games we still have more fouls against us. As soon as our opponents fall down, foul , game stops , impetus gone.. is that something the Yorkshire Whistler can look at what do you think?
Thanks John Quin
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Hi John – i don’t expect him to watch the whole game – he has a life too!
I have been thinking about a reasonable way to measure this. I would possession adjust fouls for an against such that the numbers were as if each team had 50% possession. I was thinking also that number of pressures and number of duels would be good proxies for level of “aggression”. What do you think?
Damian says
Obviously this question wasn’t for me – but that sounds a model well worth exploring.
Steve says
Presumably the 10 includes the 2 fouls caught by VAR, the handball, and foul in build up to disallowed goal. Meaning that only 8 fouls were given in open play against one side an almost 3:1 split.
Damian says
Yes, but bear in mind that season on season since Rangers joined the top flight, Rangers players have received more yellow cards than Celtic players. Last season, around 20 more, which is close to the norm since 2016-17.
I would not imagine any of this is something that the YW looks at given that he only tends to review the isolated incidents he is provided with by Alan (and we should be grateful for him doing this much). We’d need a much bigger model to look at these patterns in that kind of depth.
Meg Dunn says
Hi!
Would you think of making a submission to UEFA? Taking all of the analysis you’ve done over time, the pattern exists that referees are favouring The Rangers – so is that not match fixing?
You can submit a report here
https://integrity.uefa.org/index.php?isMobile=0
And there’s also this – a review of Scottish referees by an academic at Manchester University, where he concludes that they are ‘not impartial’.
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.365
Maybe there’s a reason why you’ve not done this before – maybe you think it’s a waste of time? But if independent, statistical evidence is provided – surely they must have a look? If they know they’re being investigated, that might put the wind up them! Happy to help if you want me to – but you can clearly put your case much better than I could.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Hi Meg
Thanks
Just FYI – that article you reference is a very early draft that has roamed into the wild.
An interesting thought – will explore.
thx
Meg Dunn says
Hi Alan
I didn’t know that, about the article – I only saw it last week for the first time.
But I just think that, given the quality of your work and the patterns it reveals, it’s a shame not to use it. I know the Celtic FC Board are too risk-averse – but if you put your work into a report, maybe the Celtic Trust would back you and give the complaint a bit of weight? Or you could contact the main discussion boards and ask supporters there to back you? Even if it just causes a bit of a kerfuffle in Scotland – it’ll have been worth it!
Not sure you need it but if you want some help, pulling it all together, I’m happy to help with that.
Regards
Meg
Majestic Hartson says
Meg,
Over on Celtic Quick News I’m sure I read that the Celtic Trust were looking for shareholders to back them in raising this as an issue
I’m also curious as to whether any other fan groups have watched the videos or listened to the ASCOM podcast.
It really deserves a wider audience and IMHO will only gain any traction if fans of other clubs are talking about it too.
Meg Dunn says
Hi MH!
I’m sure other discussion boards watch ASCOM – I’ve seen Alan’s work commented on on one on which I’m a member (KDS). I’ve not seen much from the Celtic Trust lately but I’ll contact JF directly and see if they have anything planned.
RefMartin says
This incident (amongst others) highlights the need for a strict protocol for VAR reviews. There should be a full review of (arbitrarily) the 4 seconds leading up to the incident, or something. This would cover enough to allow context. By having it as a mandatory thing (2 angles, and both at full speed and slow mo minimum) we remove the ability to influence like this. VAR reviews already take ages, adding 20 seconds is nothing. And a standardised set of views with kn field ref being able to request other specifics makes sense.
Damian says
Martin, in your opinion, did the booking that was rescinded play any part in the decision? The VAR review presumably showed enough to confirm that the yellow for simulation (in that instance) was not warranted? So, could the ref have walked back over, rescinded the yellow but somehow not awarded the penalty? Given that he’d made the booking before any VAR involvement, did all roads lead to the penalty at that point?
RefMartin says
Hi Damian, good question and I had wondered that myself. If not for Alan’s trends I’d say pop psychology wise that the booking almost certainly affected the decision. Silva dived a lot that game but the time he got booked there was actually contact (with the noted caveats) so a ref may feel ashamed about getting that one wrong.
The only way to overturn the yellow with current VAR protocol is to give the penalty. You’re basically not in a position to overturn the yellow and give the corner. Which is arguably what the “right” decision would be. The card and how the game is restarted come into play (can’t have indirect free kick if you rescinded the booking). Frankly, it was a mess. Had Beaton booked Silva for his more obvious dives earlier it wouldn’t have happened
Ryan M says
He could have easily awarded the corner? I’m sure there’s also room for contact not being a foul or a dive. But it was 100% a dive.
RefMartin says
Could’ve given the corner and no booking in real time, but as VAR got involved it became a penalty/no penalty issue. The contact affected the “simulation” verdict and if you say Silva didn’t dive your only route at that point is penalty. You can’t give the corner because you stopped the game before the ball went out of play. You’re left with sticking to the simulation/booking and owning it against the very public outcry from Ibrokes, or giving the penalty. With 2 more seconds of footage I’d expect him to stick to original decision in all honesty. For once, I’m not going to blame Beaton for this. He was working with incomplete data.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
I disagree
Beaton is very experienced. As the final decision maker why did he not ask to be shown the full end to end context? He was led to a specified outcome but willingly so.
George barr says
Great work Alan
As a Celtic fan it’s tiresome to know the rivals are constantly given a leg up in all competitions
The foul count is a joke – silva is an embarrassment
Stephen Tierney says
Thank you, Alan. And thank you to the Yorkshire Whistler. I always enjoy reading his comments and it is a credit to you that he keeps devoting time to this to try to help us understand what is going on.
On the incident in the 51st minute, to have one final go at this, officially (according to the guidance that the IFAB has published) simulation includes exaggerating the effect of any contact to try to win a penalty. This is crystal clear in the guidance.
Equally clear is the IFAB’s guidance that officials, in the course of contemplating a possible penalty and conducting a VAR review, must overturn the penalty if they see evidence of simulation.
I’m sorry to harp on about it, but this appears to render inaccurate the Yorkshire Whistler’s comment that “you can argue a case that Silva feels this contact and goes to ground as many players do, and so it is not an act of simulation as such and that the caution is harsh”.
It also renders superfluous all the debate about Johnston’s contact with the ball first and whether or not his contact with Silva was enough to warrant a penalty.
His “as many players do” addendum is fair. There are instances all the time of players going down when they probably could have stayed on their feet. I doubt if the IFAB expects its published guidance to sort this out. I think it is aimed more at trying to stamp out the type of egregious exaggeration that we witnessed from Fábio Silva on Sunday.
Evidence of simulation = no penalty. If it’s no penalty *because of the simulation* (and otherwise would have been a penalty), that is absolutely and entirely the point of the IFAB guidance.
Either the officials in charge on Sunday do not know this, which would be worrying, or they do know and chose to ignore it, which would be worse.
The Cha says
Do we know for definite that Beaton didn’t see footage of Johnston touching the ball?
I know that Sky didn’t show it as part of their VAR review but do they get everything, as its less transparent than England (no audio etc) that YW will be familiar with.
The wretched game a few years ago when the same ref let Morelos away with multiple Red Card fouls and Celtic complained the answer was he had seen them all, so no problem.
Similar, this time, our complaint can be dismissed that he did review all the footage and the fact that its a wrong call is lost in the noise.
Whilst its a shame for us that YW has a life 😉 a couple of other incidents caught my attention:
At Kuhn booking, the ref dotted his fingers all over the park, which usually indicates persistent fouling. I know Basketball, Rugby, Hockey etc have the concept of ‘team fouls’ but I’ve never heard of this in football, so have I missed something?
Sewcondly, Yang when down after a non-trivial head collision and the ref played on when Rangers were in a strong attacking position. This was clearly wrong in this day and age and I’m surprised Celtic didn’t make anything of this, which is a high priority issue in the game.
We could raise this as a health and safety issue and point out that it would be equally wrong if it happened the other way, so avoiding issues of bias/paranoia.
RefMartin says
Beaton got the same footage as we saw. What was said is another thing…
The playing advantage from a head injury was baffling and utterly inexcusable. As was missing the foul for their goal. As has been pointed out, had they got a corner instead then scored… That goal would’ve stood. It wasn’t even a subtle foul and Beaton had a clear view. Awful error.
I actually have some sympathy for him re both penalty decisions, but otherwise he had a dreadful game.
Kevin Martin says
No question of a red for Goldson as Scales would’ve had a clear attempt at goal without his intervention with his arm. Also Dessers should’ve been booked for jumping into the crowd with the corner flag despite the goal being chopped off.
RefMartin says
Handball in the box this season changed. Deliberate handball to deny goalscoring opportunity remains red, but I’m not convinced this is what happened here. Last season shots on goal resulted in yellow, now not so much. Expected decision here would be penalty/no card.
Kevin Martin says
Had the ball been played along the ground and the only way to stop it getting to scales foot was a handball I think it would be deemed a red. I don’t think a cross at height should be judged differently.
RefMartin says
That’s not really a good argument. Height obviously comes into play as arms are not on the ground. Had he bent down to stop it with his hand it would’ve been a clear and positive motion to do so. Everyone who has seen a game of football would know the difference between these 2 scenarios.
But regardless, the laws are as IFAB have written them. This season that type of handball isn’t worthy of a card. There’s also the header by Maeda just before it… Reducing the distance travelled. No decent ref is giving Goldson a red there, that’s one of the few things you’ll get widespread agreement on from us.
Or actually, after the Arsenal Bayern Munich game… Who knows what a UEFA ref would do these days….
Benny says
The big talking point for me isn’t the penalty for them it’s Beaton not giving a foul against them when they scored their goal that was disallowed, he was a yard from the play,had a clear site of the foul and allowed play to continue,without being too biased if you asked anyone who knows anything about football that is as stonewall a foul as you can get,why did it need var to pull play back for the foul,it allowed the atmosphere to crank up and it gave their players more belief,it was a disgraceful decision not to award a foul
Majestic Hartson says
Yes, I can’t get my head around how he wouldn’t have seen that free kick.
Ryan M says
I think he must have instantly known. He’s noticed the foul, how could he not? But thought this is one I can get away with allowing, help build some momentum, then it ends up under the microscope because they score.
The game, and all the games, are riddled with fouls like this that go under the radar (and the slightest of touches being given as fouls in the other direction). Add these all up and momentum can be seriously affected.