Honest Mistakes to Week 28

At 0:21

Ball crossed into the box and the Livingston defender quite clearly and naïvely pulls on the shirt of Morelos which directly impacts his ability to try and jump to head the ball. Straight forward foul and penalty decision.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the penalty.

Outcome

At 1:28

Kelly over runs the ball and in attempting to slide tackle and recover the ball, he lunges in late on Kamara. Given the studs are showing and the challenge is slightly off the ground, this is clearly a yellow card, reckless challenge but also there is a case to answer as to if this was actually a sending off offence.

I had to watch the replay several times before settling on the decision that a yellow card was, on the balance, the correct decision. Yes, the studs are off the ground but Kelly appears to recognise at the last second he won’t get to the ball first and so pulls his leg back and this take some of the ‘sting’ and impact out of the actual contact. If a red card had been shown at the time I would not have been surprised, but don’t feel there is enough here to say the yellow card was the wrong decision either.

Verdict: Correct decision to caution Kelly for the foul.

Outcome

At 4:15

Initial on field decision: Foul to Rangers and Omeonga sent off for second bookable offence.

Omeonga goes to close down the Rangers forward and appears to catch him with the smallest of impacts. I do believe there is a foul committed here but feel the Livingston defender will feel hard done by to have collected his 2nd yellow card of the game for this soft looking foul. It is my belief that the referee has shown the second yellow card and ultimately the resulting red card, as he feels the foul stopped a promising attack. Although there is an element of subjectivity over what any one person feels is a ‘promising attack’, it is my opinion here that this was not a promising attack. Roofe is outside the box, going away from goal. There are four or five defenders around and no Rangers player close by in support, who look like they might immediately benefit from Roofe’s potential next passage of play.

Verdict Incorrect decision. Foul is committed but a sending off for 2nd bookable offence was not the expected sanction outcome.

Outcome

At 1:58

Initial on field decision: Penalty to Rangers for handball following VAR review

The fact I had to watch this clip about 10 times to even spot an incident worthy of VAR review makes me suspect this will have been a contentious decision at the time. I just don’t agree with the decision at all to award a penalty for hand ball.

What I see is a defender and attacker both competing for the same space and after their initial contact, Alebiosu is knocked off balance and falls forward. For me, his arm is a natural position in the context of his tussle with the Rangers player. The ball kicks up off the surface and he makes no attempt to move his arm anywhere else. I found the decision to recommend a VAR review and the referee to then award a penalty for hand ball both baffling decisions.

Verdict: Incorrect decision to penalise for hand ball and award a penalty kick. No foul committed

Outcome

At 2:50

Initial on field decision: No decision.

There is a coming together between the two players after the ball has bounced out of their reach. Minimal contact here and I suspect McKenzie leaves his leg dangling when he knows he’s not getting near the ball. I would not have been expecting a penalty to be awarded here.

Verdict: Correct decision to not award a foul.

Outcome

At 3:32

Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Kilmarnock

Dorsett scores from close range after his team mate wins a header at the back post. There is a question as to does the team mate push down on the shoulders of the Rangers player marking him and stop him from competing for the ball. For me the Rangers player is backing in his man and does not actually make any attempt at all to jump for the ball. In this situation. It is only the Kilmarnock that makes any attempt to jump and as such I do not feel he unfairly impedes the Rangers player and therefore agree with the on-field decision to allow the goal.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the goal.

Outcome

At 0:00

Initial on field decision: Penalty to St Mirren after VAR review.

St Mirren player flicks ball up and it hits Taylor arm inside the box. Some sympathy for Taylor as there is little reaction after the ball is flicked up. However, his arm is outstretched and the arm clearly blocks the ball from its intended path. The arm is a lot higher than where the expected contact of the ball is and so I feel this makes his body unnaturally bigger and not justifiable by situational movement so a foul has been committed.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the penalty for hand ball offence.

Outcome

At 1:21

Initial on field decision: Red card shown to Dunne. Penalty initially awarded and then changed to a free kick following VAR review.

Kyogo closes down the St Mirren defender who initially looks favourite to shepherd ball back to his keeper. But then Dunne under hits the back pass, panics and leans straight to Kyogo and drags him to the fall in the process. Given this is the clear denial of a goal scoring opportunity and that he makes no attempt to challenge for the ball, the red card is the correct sanction, irrespective of whether the challenge happens inside or outside the box. VAR intervenes and provides the referee with clarify that the offence did take place just outside the 18-yard box and so the free kick is awarded

Verdict: Correct to award the free kick and send off Dunne for a DOGSO

Outcome

At 2:28

Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Celtic

Johnston gets on end of a Mooy free kick and heads home from close range. There is the question of does Johnston impede the St Mirren player whilst competing for the ball. There is some contact from Johnston’s arms but I do not see a clear push or infringement. It is a case of Johnston’s desire to win the ball is greater than that of his marker, who does not seem that interested in jumping or challenging for the ball.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the goal.

Outcome

At 4:40

Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Celtic after Var review

Oh falls down a little theatrically under the challenge of the St Mirren player and the referee believes he is trying to buy a penalty by suggesting his legs have been taken.

However, it is actually a clear shirt pull by the St Mirren on player which prevents Oh from getting to the ball and this is where VAR really shows its benefits. The referee is looking at lower contact and ball and so is unsighted for the upper body shirt pull. Once reviewed it is an easy decision for the referee to correctly award the penalty kick.

Verdict: Correct decision to award the penalty for the infringement.

Outcome

At 0:00

Initial on field decision: Offside given, overturned to goal to Hearts after Var review

Ball is played across from Hearts left flank, Ginnelly attempts to time his run and gets on end of ball to score. Flag goes up for a potential offside from the assistant referee and VAR decide the player was level and goal is ultimately awarded.

This is an incredibly marginal call either way as the closet defender to Ginnelly looks virtually level. I have been sent a still image of the point of contact from the other Hearts player that might make it appear that Ginnelly’s right knee hairs are 1mm offside, but when I watched and paused the footage independently, my gut feeling was Ginnelly was just level at the point of impact.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker on balance and so say the correct decision was made to award the goal.

Verdict; Correct decision

Outcome

At 2:05

Initial on field decision: Foul to Hearts. VAR check for a potential red card offence, not given after review.

Bernabei with an outstretched left foot does appear to catch the Hearts player and studs to catch the opponent’s outer right ankle.

As the studs are showing, I suspect this is why a VAR review takes place. However, for this tackle to be considered a red card for serious foul play, then the VAR team need to feel confident the referee has missed a tackle that endangers player safety or uses excessive force/brutality.

For me, Bernabei is almost in a standing position before then extending his leg to challenge for the ball. Therefore, he has no real momentum behind the leg extension and so there is no excessive force/brutality behind his tackle.

Slightly high? Yes. Red card offence? No.

Verdict: Correct decision not to upgrade the challenge to a sending off offence.

Outcome