Honest Mistakes – The End of 2022

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

Outcome

At 1:11

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.

Outcome

At 4:36

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

Outcome

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.

Outcome

At 4:28

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.

Outcome

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

Outcome

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.

Outcome

At 4:03

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.

Outcome