Honest Mistakes – Scottish Cup Quarter Final Special

At 01:25

I can see why the referee awarded the penalty. Tavernier appears to ‘drop the shoulder’ and go past the defenders left side who is caught slightly flat footed by Tavernier’s change of direction. The defender then steps forward directly into Tavernier’s path and clearly uses his shoulder to block the Rangers player run. Taverner bounces off the Dundee defender and goes to ground. There is clear upper body contact, and the defender impedes Tavernier and does not touch the ball.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the penalty

Outcome

At 01:00

I would imagine this would have been seen as a somewhat contentious decision at the time, as on several viewings, I found myself questioning my original thoughts on this one.

Hatate covers the ground at pace to close down the Dundee Utd player and slides in with his leading foot, studs showing and appears to catch the foot of the Dundee Utd player as the player clears the ball.

At full speed my initial reaction was that I expected a red card to be shown. The contact is by Hatate’s studs on the right heel of the Dundee Utd player, and he clearly catches him late. Under Law 12: Fouls & Misconduct, this is easily in the territory of criteria of a caution i.e., committing a challenge in a reckless manner.

The question is now, does this challenge also meet the sending off criteria: A challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality?

When reviewing a challenge in slow motion, often, the slowed down footage makes a challenge worse and more exaggerated than in real time.

But interestingly, when reviewing this challenge in slow motion, a couple of things make me think a yellow card was the correct outcome.

If you watch Hatate as he slides in with his front knee slightly bent, this is reducing the power of the impact and he is merely relying on his sliding momentum to ‘block’ the ball with his front foot. I would not say there is any intent to hurt or endanger his opponent and you could question if he is showing excessive force.

I sometimes to refer the imaginary ‘orange card’ sanction that referees sometimes wish they had. The kind of incident that feels it should be slightly more than a yellow card sanction but not quite enough to issue a red card and this is one incident.

Whatever colour card was shown on the day of this match, you could justify to an extent and after lengthy deliberation, I find myself comfortable with the original caution decision.

Verdict: Correct decision (just about) to issue a yellow card.

Outcome

At 01:28

Cross comes in from the Celtic right flank and Giakoumakis goes to shoot, the ball ricochets onto his arm before diverting into the path of Maeda who scores from close range before seeing the goal disallowed for the hand ball in the build-up.

This is an interesting one to review as the verdict on this decision is different this season, compared to last season based on IFAB’s latest wording of Law 12 – Handling the ball.

As usual with handball offences we will reference current handball considerations:

Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence

Deliberate handball is an offence – which in this incident we can see is accidental contact.

Next did the player make his body shape unnaturally bigger as a consequence of his movement that is not justifiable by his body movement for that specific situation.

For me this body shape is in a natural position as he goes to strike the ball normally with his foot, and then ball kicks up and hits his natural arm position for a shooting chance.

Next is the latest Law 12 wording; It is an offence if the player scores directly from THEIR hand/arm even if accidental or if that player scores immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm even if accidental

Crucially when reviewing this incident is the fact that if Giakoumakis himself had scored the goal, it would have been correct to disallow the strike but as it then deflected to a teammate who scored the goal, the decision to disallow the strike was incorrect and the goal should have stood.

This is a different outcome to last season where the handball law was worded to disallow handball that then went on to see a goal scored in the following passage of play.

Verdict: Incorrect decision. Goal should have been allowed. Referee to familiarise himself with current IFAB guidance around Law 12 ?

Outcome