This piece takes us up to date with a review of the big calls as we eagerly await the resumption of the league campaign in Scotland.
The impact of big calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
SPFL Game Weeks Twelve and Thirteen
04/11/23 Ross County vs Celtic
Incident 1
| Referee | David Munro |
| Game Minute | 5th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Scales scores for Celtic |
| Outcome | Free kick to Ross Co for foul by Oh |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 04/11/2023
At 2:09 |
Incident 2
| Referee | David Munro |
| Game Minute | 8th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Brown fouls Yang |
| Outcome | Free kick to Celtic, YC to Brown upgraded to RC on VAR review |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 04/11/2023
At 2:57 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Brown brings down Yang
Initial on field decision: Foul to Celtic. Caution to Brown that is upgraded after VAR review to a sending off offence. On edge of Ross County penalty area Brown stretches to make a challenge on the Celtic player and appears to catch him late. Referee is in proximity and feels the tackle is reckless in nature and issues caution. However, on review, the challenge by Brown does look to be worse. His right foot is fully extended, and his studs get planted around the inside ankle area of the Celtic man. Once this contact is brought to the referee’s attention, we would expect to see this kind of challenge deemed to be an act of serious foul play due to the excessive force used and endangering the opponent’s safety – therefore a sending off incident. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION TO UPGRADE TO A SENDING OFF OFFENCE. |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 3
| Referee | David Munro |
| Game Minute | 30th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Oh scores for Celtic |
| Outcome | Goal to Celtic overturned for offside by VAR |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 04/11/2023
At 5:00 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Oh scores for Celtic
Initial on field decision: Initial goal ruled out for offside after VAR review. Oh gets on end of cross and scores from close range but after VAR intervene, offside decision is awarded. I understand there is some debate around which frame was used by the VAR team on the game to make the offside decision. I don’t have enough knowledge or inside information to address that issue. All I can base my observations on, is the first freeze frame taken from the highlights package presented. An incredibly tight call as we would expect, but my gut feeling is that the Celtic right-side player who crosses the ball, does appear to be offside due to the position of his right knee at the moment the ball is played to him. I do not see any other images/evidence that conclusively contradicts my opinion. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION TO AWARD THE OFFSIDE |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
12/11/23 Livingston vs The Rangers
Incident 1
| Referee | Steven McLean |
| Game Minute | 14th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Goldson scores for TRFC |
| Outcome | Free kick to Livingston on VAR review for offside interference by Dessers |
| Evidence | Livingston 0-2 Rangers | Dessers And Tavernier Give Rangers Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 0:23 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Initial on field decision: Goal initially awarded to Rangers but then awarded as offside against Rangers player Dessers deemed to be interfering.
Goldson scores after the Livingston keeper initially parries the original free kick. Although Goldson is clearly onside when he scores, I think this clip demonstrates excellent teamwork between the on-field referee and the VAR team. The VAR will instruct the referee to award offside as a factual decision in almost all cases of offside, which is why you do not normally see the on-field ref review the screen for offside decisions. But here, the reason Dessers is ultimately adjudged to be offside, is that he moves towards the ball but doesn’t play it. Under Law 11 – “offsides, a player should be deemed active for an offside offence when ‘clearly attempts to play the ball which is close when this action impacts on opponent Or makes an obvious action which impacts the ability of opponent to play the ball” This is more of a subjective decision and can only be decided by the on-field referee as to whether he believes Dessers meets these criteria. The VAR will have said Dessers is stood offside as the ball is delivered, but they wouldn’t say if he was ‘interfering’ on not. The referee makes the final call after being brought to the pitch side monitor. For the record, I felt this was a great call by the referee. Dessers stretches out his boot to play the ball, which clearly impacts the goalkeepers positioning and reactions to this attempt – which then causes his to parry rather than catch the ball. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION TO OVER RULE THE GOAL |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
| Referee | Steven McLean |
| Game Minute | 22nd |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | McAusland goes down in the box |
| Outcome | Penalty to TRFC |
| Evidence | Livingston 0-2 Rangers | Dessers And Tavernier Give Rangers Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 1:24 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | McCausland goes down in the box
Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Rangers McCausland attempts to get to the ball before the Livingston keeper and is adjudged to have been fouled and penalty awarded. I was surprised the VAR didn’t ask the referee to review this decision as I feel this is a very soft penalty decision. The Rangers player looks to anticipate any contact here and is already going down before the minimal contact from the left arm of the Livingston keeper is made. Not nearly enough in this for me to see a penalty awarded. VERDICT: INCORRECT DECISION; No foul committed here, and penalty not expected outcome |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
+0.46 xPts for TRFC |
Incident 3
| Referee | Steven McLean |
| Game Minute | 44th |
| Score At Time | 0-1 |
| Incident | McAusland scores for TRFC |
| Outcome | Goal to TRFC overturned by VAR for a foul by Sima |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 12/11/2023
At 31:27 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | McCausland scores for Rangers
Initial on field decision: Initial goal ruled out by after VAR review due to foul committed by Sima In the build up to this goal, Sima challenges for the cross and the referee deems this to have been a foul. I’ve watched clip back several times over and although I see the defender go to ground and Sima is in proximity, I don’t see the Rangers player do much wrong here. There is minimal contact from his right arm, certainly not enough for a clear push and it looks like the defender simply loses his footing. Player’s reaction sometimes gives us clues about what may have happened and interesting the defender does not look at the referee or appeal for a foul against him. This confirms my belief that no foul committed in the build-up. VERDICT: INCORRECT DECISION. GOAL SHOULD HAVE STOOD |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
-0.9 xPts for TRFC |
Incident 4
| Referee | Steven McLean |
| Game Minute | 77th |
| Score At Time | 0-1 |
| Incident | Ball hits Devlin in the box |
| Outcome | Penalty to TRFC for handball |
| Evidence | Livingston 0-2 Rangers | Dessers And Tavernier Give Rangers Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 4:13 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Long cross into the Livingston box
Initial on field decision: Initially no foul committed, but after VAR review, penalty awarded to Rangers for hand ball by Devlin Cross into box and Devlin and Rangers player both jump to head the ball. In real time it is hard to see what part of Devlin’s body clear the ball but under video review you can see that his left arm is higher than his head and the ball hits this raised arm. I have a little bit of sympathy for the defender as he is under pressure from the Rangers man and although it is not an intentional hand ball, I can see why it is given. I understand players to raise their arms a little as part of natural body position when jumping to head – but as soon as you raise the ram higher than your head, you are getting into the area of making your body shape unnaturally larger not expected for that situation. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION TO PENALISE THE HAND BALL OFFENCE AND AWARD THE PENALTY |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
12/11/23 Celtic vs Aberdeen
Incident 1
| Referee | Willie Collum |
| Game Minute | 50th |
| Score At Time | 2-0 |
| Incident | Rubezic and Kyogo clash for the ball |
| Outcome | Free kick to Celtic and YC to Rubezic |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 12/11/2023
At 8:25 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Rubezic & Furuhashi challenge for the ball
Initial on field decision: Foul to Celtic and Rubezic cautioned for a reckless challenge. This looks a painful challenge and I suspect Furuhashi certainly had a sore head the following day. Rubezic also appears to have suffered a blow to head here. Both players have eyes on the ball and are determined to win the header and it is the Celtic player who gets there fractionally first. I believe this is genuine head collision and attempt to play the ball by Rubezic. I feel both players were correct in their attempts to try and head the ball and as such do not feel Rubezic committed any act of serious foul play here. I believe the caution for a challenge reckless appropriate sanction here. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
| Referee | Willie Collum |
| Game Minute | 77th |
| Score At Time | 2-0 |
| Incident | Oh goes down in the box under challenge from MacKenzie |
| Outcome | Penalty to Celtic on VAR review |
| Evidence | Celtic 6-0 Aberdeen | Furuhashi and a Korean Hat-trick as Dons are Thrashed | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 2:25 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Oh goes down in the box
Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Celtic after VAR review Referee initially awards corner kick after Aberdeen player challenges Oh for the ball. However, when watching incident back you see Oh win the ball before the Aberdeen player catches him on the left thigh and the defender gets nothing on the ball at all. VERDICT: CORRECT DECISION TO AWARD THE PENALTY |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
A couple of lively ties in Dingwall and at Livingston generated some unexpected drama.
A personal note from me on the “challenge” by Aberdeen’s Slobodan Rubeži? on Kyogo. Trying to ignore club loyalties here and secondly this comment is in no way aimed at the Yorkshire Whistler. His appraisal I would posit reflects accurately the prevailing attitude to head injuries within professional football. I find it sad that within football such challenges do not generate uproar irrespective of the victim.
In rugby, which I know has different dynamics, such a collision would have seen not only a red card for Rubeži? but likely a lengthy ban. Football is slow to move away from the all-mitigating “the ball is there to be won” and towards players having to account for the safety of their opponents. Sometimes the ball is simply not there to be won at any cost. Which is complex, I admit.
Anyway, back to other things that seem immune to change.
In terms of the overall position:
The Rangers have 0.6 less points and Celtic 0.8 less than expected due to the impact of Honest Mistakes. The Rangers are 0.2 xPts better off thanks to honest mistakes.
Celtic lead by eight points after 13 matches having played a game more.
Re: Oh challenge to set up disallowed goal by Scales, it would have been interesting to hear whether the YW would have given a penalty if the defender had won the ball with the same type of challenge.
How does the penalty only generate +0.46pts but the disallowed goal is -0.9pts?
Because the chance of scoring a penalty is always 77% not 100%
Interesting read as always Alan. One question, there were at least two (maybe three?) contentious shirt pulls in the Ross County penalty area that weren’t even reviewed by VAR. Any reason these haven’t made the cut for review by the YW? I’d be keen to get his take given his comments on the Goldson v Hearts incident.
Well i’d argue there was one and it is a case of having video evidence – i can;t present it without it. That being said i have got video now of the most obvious pull on Oh and the YW is reviewing.
I would agree with you regarding the challenge on Kyogo, reflecting current thinking on the part of officials (Dermot Gallagher amongst others agreed with YW) and perhaps the wider football community.
What is strange to me is that if it was 2 players competing on the ground and one wins the ball cleanly but then after he puts his studs into the other player’s shin, albeit accidentally and not with great force, this is often given as a red card for endangering an opponent.
This is fair enough if you’re erring on the side of player safety but it seems bizarre the benefit of the doubt seems to be given to the fouling player for a surely potentially more serious head clash.
Important caveat again about the video images YW had access too, so let’s not pile on him. VAR on the other hand is not quite so hamstrung.
He’s right re the head injury, but only because football is wrong and outdated. We don’t treat head injuries seriously enough, in terms of player protection, proper on and off field assessment (players often “assessed” in about 30 seconds- utterly impossible to properly do SCAT5 in that time), timeframes to return to sport (realistically we should be aiming for 21 days, not the 4 or 5 we frequently see. AJ was brought back *far* too early)and how seriously we deal with the person who causes a head injury. We look at reckless fouls being cautionable and dangerous ones as red card worthy, regardless of intent. The aim there is to dissuade high energy out of control tackles even when player are trying to win the ball (because so little need go wrong to cause serious injury) yet there is an assumption still that nobody means to cause a head injury and they’re putting their own head in danger so we don’t view it the same. Utterly wrong.In 3-4 years that type of challenge that came in on Kyogo will be a red card challenge and rightly so.
There’s growing evidence of the long term sequelae on concussion (especially for the younger player- essentially less space around the brain). When I have given concussion talks to FAs and FIFA the reception has always been broadly positive towards proactive changes, but unfortunately these things move much slower than sponsorship deals. In fairness to IFAB and FIFA, they are doing more than I expected on this front and a lot of the concussion regulations, equipment and substitution rules that they’re trialling are encouraging. Unfortunately I don’t really trust teams to protect players so the minimum timeframe out probably needs to come down from above.
In my talks (given, weirdly in my capacity as a referee rather than as a doctor) my referee colleagues have confided that head injuries scare them. Frankly referee training- especially at grassroots level- needs to start a focus on this. We may not be *responsible* for decisions regarding if a player continues (except in USA grassroots- that’s a really good innovation I hope comes across) but we still have a role to play. And we need the backing of the FAs to let us intervene if we need to. At the end of the day, I’m far more interested in the players being safe than I am about the score.
I would have probably sent Rubezic off in one of my games, but we’re really focussed on head injuries and layer protection this year so I know my referee manager would back me up. I just don’t see any need for someone to go for a header with that level of intensity, especially in that area of the pitch. To be honest even if there hadn’t have been a challenge and he just went for a ball like that I’d probably have a word afterwards and remind him that he’s risking injuring his brain doing that.
Fascinating.
You are both a ref and a doctor, Martin?
Yeah, a GP and do some football doctoring locally too.
Well, thanks for sharing that. Really interesting.
Thank you – great post.