Bringing us up to date with the big calls reviewed from Match Week 11 in the SPFL.
The introduction of VAR added to a tumultuous match at Tynecastle involving Celtic where a big call seemed to need review every five minutes. There was also a big moment at Ibrox as the hosts played Livingston.
The Yorkshire Whistler is, happily, not redundant because of this technological new dawn. He will continue to opine on those occasions where the decision is maybe unclear or controversial. It will also mean some incidents will not be referred. For example, both penalty awards to Hearts against Celtic were pretty clear cut.
The impact of that call being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
22/10/22 Hearts vs Celtic
Incident 1
| Referee | Nick Walsh |
| Game Minute | 31st |
| Incident | Ralston scores for Celtic |
| Outcome | Goal disallowed, free kick to Hearts |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 22/10/2022
At 3:25 |
Incident 2
| Referee | Nick Walsh |
| Game Minute | 45th |
| Incident | Carter-Vickers and Devlin clash in the box |
| Outcome | Penalty to Hearts |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 22/10/2022
At 4:25 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Carter-Vickers and Devlin clash in the box
Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Hearts This is the first incident I have been asked to review the newly implemented VAR system now introduced into the SPFL. I am working on the assumption that the brief and threshold for VAR usage in the SPFL, is the same as that seen in the EPL. If so, then this first VAR assessed, incident would appear to be an accurate intervention. On the basis that slow motion footage indicates the Hearts players foot just getting to the ball, a split second before Carter Vickers, then a foul has been committed and the penalty kick is correctly awarded, after review. If I may interject, my personal views on VAR from the perspective of a currently active referee in the English game, I do have an issue with the definition of VAR intervention of what constitutes a ‘CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERROR’. For me, the referee has not committed a clear and obvious error in initially not awarding the foul. The challenge happens that quickly, the human eye of a referee cannot be certain who touched what first. For that reason, my own opinion is that incidents should not be slowed down (which always makes incidents more exaggerated/obvious) when VAR reviews are undertaken. If after 3/4 views of an incident in real time, a clear and obvious error cannot be detected, then the review should end and the referee’s decision should stand. I can’t ever see this being implemented, but it would reduce the length of reviews and give back confidence to the on-field referees regarding scrutiny of these so called ‘clear and obvious errors’. Anyway, enough of my personal views, coming back to this incident, the right call is ultimately made. Verdict: Correct decision to award the penalty after forensic scrutiny. |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 3
| Referee | Nick Walsh |
| Game Minute | 45th |
| Incident | Smith handballs in the Hearts box |
| Outcome | No decision |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 22/10/2022
At 6:12 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Ball hits Smith on the arm in the area
Initial on field decision: No foul awarded Accidental hand ball here, so we are now deciding if the arm is extended unnaturally specific to that situation. Again, I’m happy that the right decision is made here. Smith is stood in a defensive jockeying position, slightly lower centre of gravity. So, he is leaning down arms slightly extended but not unnaturally so. Given proximity to player and perceived lack of reaction time as a result, I would have deemed this as accidental handball, justified, so no foul committed. Addendum: Smith, handball decision. Player reaction to an incident sometimes helps cement the initial feeling or interpretation that a referee will have on a particular incident. However, this does not necessarily translate to, the more vociferous the shout, the more obvious the outcome is. My experience of handball shouts in particular within the field of play, is that players react to the handball itself, rather than the several factors that have to be considered as to whether the handball is an actual offence. Players will always shout for handball, irrespective of individual circumstance. In games where there have been several shouts of “oi, ref handball surely” I do loudly reply to players when it has happened and my patience is running thin, with the standard response ‘Lads, we do know that accidental handball on its own is not an offence, don’t we?” This usually mutes the following appeals. My thought process in agreeing with the initial finding, acknowledges that it accidental hits the Hearts player on the arm, but given the relative low angle of arm, proximity to ball when it is struck and noting that it hits his inner elbow, rather than fully extended fingers/hands, led me to a natural body shape for that particular incident – so just accidental handball, no offence committed, so to speak. I do feel my overall tolerance to accidental handballs not being given as free kicks is, perhaps slightly higher than some other referees. Probably an unconscious bias from my pre refereeing day, as a cumbersome centre half, who would have felt harshly done by as a player! Verdict : Correct decision not to award the foul |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
22/10/22 Livingston vs The Rangers
Incident 1
| Referee | David Munro |
| Game Minute | 78th |
| Incident | Boyes fouls Morelos and is sent off on VAR review |
| Outcome | Free kick to TRFC; RC to Boyes |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 22/10/2022
At 26:55 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Boyes fouls Morelos.
Initial on field decision: Foul to Rangers, Boyes shown red card. Again, similar to the first VAR reviewed incident in the Celtic game, I feel the slow-motion replay vindicates the upgrade to a red card, whereas on naked eye, full speed review, I felt the yellow card initially seemed the correct sanction. The challenge appears reckless in nature and the studs are showing, but initially I felt the motion of the defender’s leg was on a downward trajectory, the impact is one of slowing down momentum, rather than a wild, over the top lunge. But on slow motion, the studs do catch Morelos shin high and the VAR recommends to on field referee to look at again, as an excessive force challenge endangering players safety has been committed. Verdict: Correct decision to award the red card |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
Celtic fans seemed united (for once) in uproar during and after the Hearts game. In total there were six big VAR moments and all of them went against Celtic. That in and of itself probably fuelled some righteous anger.
The recommendations of the Yorkshire Whistler to vindicate all the big calls from VAR over the weekend will further annoy, I am sure.
But there is a danger in taking that view that the overall point is being missed.
In the Yorkshire Whistler we have someone who is a professional subject matter expert verifiably neutral and unbiased within the often-toxic context of Scottish football. That DOES NOT MEAN we (and I) will agree with all his decisions. That is not what this is about.
What I am trying to do here is present a world where the referee in Scotland is verifiably neutral. You will continue to get some good and bad calls based on your perspective. What you should not have is any DOUBT that what is being presented here is an expert opinion honestly given and free from any baggage.
Because this is what I would strive for in Scotland. Not that every decision goes Celtic’s way, but that if it does not, I know the person making the decision is trustworthy and free from doubt as to their motives.
If the referees have commercial relationships with The Rangers (Nick Walsh) or familial ties (Steve McLean) there is doubt that unconscious biases will influence behaviour. I am not suggesting the aforementioned are dishonest or in any way corrupt, nor do I profess to know which football team they support (but it would be useful to know). What I am saying is they are human. They are verifiably connected to The Rangers (could be any club). They, being human, will allow unconscious bias to impact their behaviour – they are not robots. These facts place DOUBT as to their performances and decision making. Where there is doubt there is lack of trust.
The SFA should remove this doubt and restore trust by knowing and publishing all referee allegiances and any conflicts of interest. Assignments should be made accordingly.
So, you may howl that the Yorkshire Whistler would not have given Celtic a penalty at Hearts. I am fizzing myself. But the point is, this is at least an opinion honestly given, one you can trust if not agree with. It is at least understandable given the vagaries of how football laws are written.
No change to the overall picture:
Based on the in-match game state when the decisions were made (or not made), The Rangers have 1.08 MORE points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes and Celtic 1.45 LESS.
A swing of 2.53 xPts.
Celtic led by four points after 11 matches.
Hi Alan
Should you not have asked him about the Jenz 2nd yellow incident Hearts fans were complaining about too?
I really enjoy these articles but the (unintended) bias towards which decisions are reviewed surely impacts the reliability of the xpoints element.
Michael, a valid question. Why it wasn’t included I can’t answer, but I can answer why it wasn’t a booking if that is helpful?
The challenge was certainly not reckless in and of itself. And it wouldn’t meet the red card criteria of DOGSO (player was moving towards corner flag rather than goal, box was crowded), serious foul play or violent conduct.
That leaves would it be a yellow for stopping a promising attack and probably yes, were it outside the box.
In the penalty box, the rules are a bit different, in the event of a penalty kick being given. In broad terms if there’s no violence, handball or serious foul play whichever card you would normally give is downgraded one (not a perfect summary but generally how we use it). So a red for a clumsy foul where it was a goalscoring chance but you give a penalty would be a yellow, a yellow for a clumsy tackle in a promising attack that wasn’t particularly reckless would escape the card if a penalty is given.
This came in a few years ago now (can’t remember exactly when but definitely more than 5) but fans tend to lag behind law changes by a few years as they have a hive mind memory of how things were 10-15 years ago.
Anyway, hope that helps a bit.
Hi Martin
Only seeing this response now. Thanks
The penalty I think most referees have come out and said its a penalty. But there’s always going to be some that don’t think it is (although the rules need to be applied consistently).
The Ralston one us the first decision I just cannot agree on even a little bit. That would need to go the same way for a penalty and it doesn’t. I’m fairly sure the rule has been explained that of two players are pulling a little it’s not a foul either way, that football isn’t a no contact sport. There was nothing in it, he barely brushes him.
There was also an offside call.
Much of the anger with the Ralston “goal” situation arose from the referees decision to use VAR full stop.
The Yorkshire Whistler pointed to an early whistle for an alleged – and extremely soft – shirt-pull. Fine.
But why then did the ref decide to go to VAR? It seems inexplicable to me.
Somebody on twitter suggested “to check for a penalty” but then do we need 5 mins of VAR for every long ball into the box?
There was obviously more of a crisis going on amongst the officials at the time than I suspect the Yorkshire whistler watching isolated incidents could pick up on….
A disappointing / surprising result. However, this surely validates whatever results have been, and also yet to come.
I’m wondering what figure would have to be to be statistically significant to be able to point to actual bias or not. (What works be the expected standard deviation I guess?)
Great work Alan and the Yorkshire Whistler!
Contrast the referees we are used to, with the thoroughly excellent referee we had against Shaktar this week. No prancing about to draw attention to himself and a very good display, calling decisions on the spot and fairly for both teams in the main. No VAR was needed by an official who was always up with play, confident in his decisions and respected by the players. He also showed the yellow card when it was needed early on, which put and early stop to those fouls which we see players get away with so often up here. Giackoumakis got some protection at last from a referee who know how to distinguish a real foul from a pretend one. Both clubs praised his efforts. Our referees are pathetic compared to this guy.
Sack the Yorkshire Whistler.
Yeh – you’ve kind of missed the point
With respect to the YH (and he’ll be used to us disagreeing in the fraternity) I really disagree about the Smith handball. The rest of the calls I am with him, but on this one I really disagree. Even before slow motion I saw Smith hand by his side then move out as he turned. Accidental handball, of this I have no doubt. but even at that close a range- the hand moves away from the body towards the ball after it has been played. I’m blowing for that one 10 times out of 10.
You failed to highlight the inconsistency of the 2nd penalty being retaken for encroachment, while the first penalty was not retaken despite encroachment on that occasion too. Is this because referees ignore encroachment if the penalty is scored? Perhaps TYW can advise.
On Ralston’s disallowed goal, should the referee have blown for a shirt pull given that the corner kick sailed over those involved in that tussle anyway? If there was a foul worthy of the name, one might argue that it did not impact Ralston’s headed goal.
The alleged offside goal has not been reviewed. I find the omission of a freeze frame with “lines” from the television viewers’ experience rather sinister.
Someone makes a good point about a potential second yellow for Jenz. All incidents need to be reviewed in order to eliminate possible unintended bias.
Always an enjoyable and stimulating read nonetheless.
Hi MrTaximan, with respect to encroachment it depends on who does the encroaching. Essentially if the penalty goes the encroaching player’s team’s way it is retaken, if it goes the other way it is not, eg.
Kicker’s team-mates encroach and it is scored- retake. If missed, play is stopped and restart with indirect free kick.
If goalie’s team encroaches, essentially the opposite of above. Goals are given, otherwise indirect free kick.
If both teams encroach- retaken regardless of outcome unless a more serious offence occurs (e.g kicked backwards, illegal feinting, wrong kicker).
I’ve not looked back at the first penalty to see who was encroaching, but hopefully based on the above you can see whether the decision not to retake was correct or not.
Great stuff as always Alan.
I couldn’t go all-in on agreeing with one of the points you made on the related Huddle Breakdown episode earlier in the week, and I thought that Enda’s protestations were more pertinent than you were allowing for. Scotland is hardly the only European country where the bulk of football loyalties are concentrated in a very small number of relatively large clubs. Indeed, it is the norm. Most European nations are like that. I think that one of many weaknesses in Scottish football is that when we’re looking for comparative value, we look no further than England. But, in this sense, England is exceptional, Scotland is far closer to the norm. And so with regard to refereeing, in England, it is perfectly possible to be an Arsenal fan (say), become a referee, declare your allegiance, excel and get to the top, never once refereeing an Arsenal match.
An important side-note too: even in England, such a person would be perfectly able to referee Spurs matches. But in Scotland, this is not technically possible (as it isn’t in Holland, Belgium, Croatia and MOST other European nations). If we’re actually going to narrow the pool of the football-minded Scottish population who can referee Celtic matches to only those we can be objectively convinced are neither Celtic or Rangers fans (bearing in mind that I know of many Celtic fans fully convinced that every Kilmarnock fan is really a Rangers fan, and to side-step the issue that Rangers fans wouldn’t necessarily be happy with an Aberdeen fan refereeing their games on this basis), then we leave ourselves with a tiny pool. Statistically, this is likely to make the quality of the referees available to us (I’d argue, a bigger problem than conscious or subconscious bias) worse not better.
I do agree with you that the governance of this matter is poor, indeed highly unprofessional. To take the comparison with Belgium or Holland – where a declared Ajax fan can indeed officiate over Ajax matches, there is a points-based system which reflects this. First, and obviously, allegiances must be declared and verified. But there is also a points-based system for refereeing competence based on correct and incorrect decisions. The major difference in those countries is that if you make a poor decision which benefits the team you are declared to support, you lose double the points (e.g. if the sanction for an incorrect penalty call is a deduction of two points, the sanction for an incorrect penalty call in favour of Ajax is four points). The same is not true in relation to officiating matches involving the team you support’s rivals – that happens everywhere, including England (where, indeed, rivalries are more varied and thought of more severely at different times; Liverpool, say, could lay claim to different kinds of rivalries with Everton, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea…; but any Liverpool fan who is a top referee could officiate any of those clubs, provided the match is not against Liverpool).
But we urgently need to move towards a more transparent system of this sort.