A bit of catching up to do on the ol’ big call analysis. This brings us up to date following Celtic’s loss in Kilmarnock and The Rangers win over Dundee.
Also please note following the incorrect assignment of the home team impact rather than the away team impact on the red card Goldson did not get at Aberdeen, The Rangers xPts impact for the season has been revised down to -0.25 overall.
On that point, a reminder that as per the link below, the assessment of impact of red cards is a very blunt instrument. It does not cater for game state (i.e. minute of game and score at the time) which the penalty impacts do. Not ideal and if some analytics whiz can knock out a better model I will happily go back and recalculate. But for now, you’ll “win” some and “lose” some.
The impact of big calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
03/12/23 St Johnstone vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 40th |
Score At Time | 0-0 |
Incident | Jaiyesimi scores for St Johnstone |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | (1) St Johnstone 1-3 Celtic | O’Riley Hits Screamer In Bhoys Comeback Victory | cinch Premiership – YouTube https://x.com/Zeshankenzo/status/1731402500459114850?s=20At 1:10 |
06/12/23 Celtic vs Hibernian
Incident 1
Referee | John Beaton |
Game Minute | 48th |
Score At Time | 2-0 |
Incident | Alistair Johnston goes down in the box under challenge from Stevenson |
Outcome | No decision; Penalty to Celtic upon VAR review |
Evidence | Celtic 4-1 Hibernian | Oh Hyeon-gyu Bags a Brace in Dominant Win | cinch Premiership (youtube.com)
At 3:01 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Johnston goes down in the box.
Initial on field decision: No decision, but after VAR review, penalty awarded to Celtic Challenge comes in from Stevenson on Johnston, and Johnston goes to ground. Contact looks to be on referee’s blindside as Celtic player is stood between referee & where the defender challenges, so can understand why referee might not have given initially, due to not being confident what contact was made. But on review VAR have correctly identified that Johnston’s standing right foot gets trapped by the defender’s right leg before any contact is made on the ball. Once referee is shown this on the pitch side monitor, straight forward decision to make. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
09/12/23 The Rangers vs Dundee
Incident 1
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute | 26th |
Score At Time | 1-1 |
Incident | Sima challenges for aerial ball from a corner |
Outcome | No decision; upon VAR review penalty to TRFC |
Evidence | Rangers 3-1 Dundee | Rangers Take Comeback Victory Despite Cifuentes Red Card | cinch Premiership (youtube.com)
At 1:50 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Ball delivered into the penalty area for a corner.
Initial on field decision: No decision, but after VAR review, penalty awarded to Rangers for a foul on Sima. Corner is delivered, Sima & a Dundee defender both jump for the ball. Sima claims he is fouled, but in real time hard to see any offence occurred. Again, VAR shows its benefits here as upon watching the replay, the defender clearly pulls the front of Sima’s shirt significantly enough to disrupt his jumping momentum and impact his ability to head the ball. Again, there is no way the referee would see this pull from his angle, so VAR recommends the on-field review, and the penalty is duly awarded. (See below for an extended view on similar incidents) |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute | 42nd |
Score At Time | 3-1 |
Incident | Cantwell scores for TRFC |
Outcome | Foul awarded to Dundee |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 09/12/2023
At 22:02 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Cantwell scores for Rangers
Initial on field decision: Goal disallowed as a foul is awarded to Dundee in the build up Cantwell appears to score a well worked goal after winning the ball back high up the pitch. However, the referee gives a defensive free kick for a foul by Lundstram on Boateng as the Dundee player releases the ball. I felt this was a soft looking foul and am not convinced an infringement has occurred. However, the referee clearly blows the whistle for this foul whilst Cantwell is still 25 yards from goal. The defenders have already switched off, even if Cantwell wants to keep playing. Technically, as soon as the referee blows the whistle to stop the play, then the ball is no longer alive. Therefore, there is no ‘goal’ to disallow as such. In the current topflight, VAR assisted game, match officials are often seen to delay their whistle until the play has come to a natural end, similar to offside decisions where the assistants initially keep their flag down and then raise it after the goal is scored. VAR can then retrospectively review the incident and give the foul/disallow the goal if required. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION, technically no ‘goal’ to review/disallow |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 3
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute | 45th |
Score At Time | 3-1 |
Incident | Cifuentes fouls Boateng |
Outcome | Foul to Dundee; YC to Cifuentes; on VAR review RC to Cifuentes |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 09/12/2023
At 23:40 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Cifuentes fouls Boateng.
Initial on field decision: Free kick to Dundee and initially a yellow card shown to Cifuentes. After VAR review, this is upgraded to a red card for a tackle with excessive force/endangering players safety. Once of those challenges that looks slightly worse when slowed own. In real time Cifuentes appears to stretch for the ball from an upright position as Bakayoko slides in under his feet to make the block. I personally do not believe there is any intent to catch the Dundee player high in real time and his leg is slightly bent to reduce the impact, as opposed to a fully extended straight leg with studs showing. However, on the last replay shown to the on-field referee by VAR, you do see the Rangers player’s studs go into the Dundee players leg, just below the knee. Not quite a knee-high tackle, given the Dundee player is stretching across the floor rather than stood upright. One of those renowned ‘orange’ card tackles where it feels slightly more than a yellow card but not quite a sending off in its own right. However, under the laws of the game, this challenge could certainly be classified as a tackle that endangers opponents’ safety. On this basis, satisfied to support the upgraded red card awarded. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 4
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute | 61st |
Score At Time | 3-1 |
Incident | Kerr fouled by Sterling |
Outcome | Foul to Dundee outside the box |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 09/12/2023
At 24:35 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Kerr fouled by Sterling
Initial on field decision: Free kick awarded to Dundee outside the box. No VAR review recommended. Clear foul committed here but a real question mark about whether a penalty should have been awarded. The Rangers player who commits the foul clearly slides into the box from his momentum to make the tackle. At the same time Kerr is running just outside and parallel to the 18-yard box. Having scrutinised the replay available frame by frame, I believe that by the tightest of margins, Kerr’s body is just outside the box as the contact is made by the Rangers player. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
10/12/23 Kilmarnock vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee | David Munro |
Game Minute | 37th |
Score At Time | 0-1 |
Incident | Johnston blocks a Ndaba shot at goal |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | Kilmarnock 2-1 Celtic | Kennedy Goal Ends Bhoys Unbeaten Streak | cinch Premiership (youtube.com)
At 1:45 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Johnston blocks Ndaba’s shot on the line
Initial on field decision: No decision. From an initial Hart parry, the ball lands at the feet of the Kilmarnock man who seems certain to score from six yards out. But he doesn’t account for the off-balance last ditch, roly poly antics of Johnston who somehow miraculously blocks the shot mid roll! Having watched the footage back several times to some amusement, I cannot fathom which part of his body the ball actually strikes, and I suspect Johnston isn’t sure himself. Certainly, there are no obviously extended arms to review here, and I am pretty confident no hand ball offence occurred. Verdict: CORRECT DECISION |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
Referee | David Munro |
Game Minute | 90th |
Score At Time | 2-1 |
Incident | Yang and Findlay clash heads |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | Video provided |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Yang & Friday collide
Initial on field decision: No decision Ball bounces just outside Kilmarnock box, both players jump to win the ball off the ground. In real time I felt the Celtic player just got to the ball a split second before the Kilmarnock defender. Watching the replay footage, this suspicion is confirmed. We see Yang glance the ball of his head before Friday’s right shoulder catches him on the side of the head. A genuine attempt to play the ball, but a free kick punishable by a yellow card for a reckless tackle in my opinion. VAR not expected to get involved here on the basis it is not a potential penalty or red card offence. Verdict: INCORRECT DECISION – freekick and caution for reckless tackle expected outcome. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
It is good to see that we’ve finally got the Yorkshire Whistler to enjoy some Scottish football as Alistair Johnston’s Charlie Chaplin-esque defending causes mirth!
And it seems Kevin Clancy got all the big calls right at Ibrox despite what many feel.
The pulling and pushing in the box is certainly a hot topic. I asked the YW what the difference was between the pull on Sima versus Dundee (penalty) and the pull on Oh at Ross County (no penalty). Here is what he said:
——————————————————————————————————————————
Evening Alan,
Firstly, let me recognise that with these kinds of incidents, there was always be an element of subjectivity/personal opinion as to what should be penalised and what ‘contact’ should be let go.
When comparing the two specific clips you have mentioned with this query, you could at first glance easily label them ‘defender on attacker shirt pulls’ and understandably expect them to be dealt with the same level of sanction.
For me there are subtle differences that led me to the conclusion that the Oh challenge fell narrowly short of expecting to see a penalty awarded whereas the Sima one I felt VAR were right to bring the challenge to the referee’s attention.
I sometimes find myself reviewing these clips and find myself having a gut reaction that says, if I were the on-field referee, I wouldn’t penalise certain fouls. But then knowing how VAR operates at this level of the game, a lower threshold needs to be met for a foul to be awarded on reviewed on the monitor if I’m being honest.
In real time, I didn’t expect either to be awarded as a foul.
For me Oh didn’t seem to have his jumping momentum impacted by the shirt pull on him, whereas Sima did on the slow-motion replay appear to have his jumping momentum impeded by the pull.
If I recall, when I reviewed the Oh clip, I mention that as soon as pull is spotted, the player committing this kind of challenge is risking the referee having to make a decision on what he has seen. If Oh’s had been awarded as a penalty, I wouldn’t have necessarily said this outcome would have been incorrect – but ultimately, I felt the decision not to recommend an on field review wasn’t clearly wrong either.
Different shades of subjective grey being applied here Alan, and knowing your passion for black and white, cold hard facts and statistics, I see where your frustrations might stem from!
——————————————————————————————————————————
Remember, the YW is giving his time free to us and as usual his explanations are thorough, credible, and honest in my opinion.
The fact he probably infuriates all fans of all clubs equally means he is doing a great job!
In terms of the overall position:
The Rangers have 0.25 less points and Celtic 0.8 less than expected due to the impact of Honest Mistakes. The Rangers are benefiting by an estimated 0.55 xPts due to the impact of honest mistakes.
Celtic lead by five points after 17 matches having played a game more.
RefMartin says
The shirt pull bit is more or less what I think when refereeing. Players tug shirts at corners but only if it impacts movement does it warrant action. However, in my capacity as a Celtic fan watching Scottish football…..I would strongly encourage players to keep their hands off the shirts of any The Rangers player. Most of their shirt pull penalties are justifiable, but the sort of decisions you know they’re ALWAYS going to get, whereas other teams probably won’t. Looking at a few of them in a row as well, I note the The Rangers players often initiate the tugging (presumably to provoke a similar response) then let go before the ball in played and…perhaps…ham up how much the shirt pull is affecting their movement. In other words, it’s being coached. And although it’s the dark arts…the defender is still 100% responsible for not pulling a shirt. Managers need to be hammering this message home.
With his fondness for shirt pulling I used to dread Starfelt giving away penalties every corner last season. It’s avoidable.
The Cha says
The problem with the approach you advocate is that it effectively endorses an un-level playing field.
This puts our players are at a diasadvantage where oppo (or 1 of them 😉 ) can pull at our players to gain an advantage but ours can’t.
Its a difficulty, as it should be the board that pursues this, which they’ve never done and are unlikely to, ever.
I do agree that players need to be smarter, which Scales was on Wednesday, slightest touch after a ref warning then go down and penalty. How many times do our players try and wrestle free, which impedes them getting the ball but this will always fall into the “not enough” category. What was alo interesting was the Feyenoord players furious reaction despite, I suspect, it being ‘clear and obvious’.
Re Starry, I wonder how many times he was actually pulled up for this apart from the grotesque one where he was still holding the shirt when the oppo was a yard away!
Forbye that I can’t remember (m)any others and for me, he was just a typically European (or simply non-Scottish) defender notwithstanding the ‘heart in the mouth’ panic it induced in us fans.
I see Forest have employed a set-piece coach, after Brentford having a throw-in coach and no doubt others, so perhaps we need a shirt-pull coach!
RefMartin says
Good comment, but it’s already an unlevel playing field. That ain’t changing, so you mitigate.
Damian says
This is key to all of this, for me. Coaching things that make getting penalties more likely vs not doing so (bearing in mind that we’re top of the penalty differential table this season, as we were in Rodgers’ first two seasons last time), and structuring your defence so as to make conceding them less likely vs playing a high line with a deliberately chaotic system.
It may or may not be worth considering that Spurs are -2 for penalties this season, having only been awarded one.
Marius Lynch says
Hugely thankful for this website. I don’t always agree with the Yorkshire Whistler, but it’s great to hear an honest referee (they are like hens teeth in bonnie Scotchland) give his views on contentious decisions. Unlike Dermot Gallagher who seems to always take the side of the referee, his opinions are worthless.
Thanks to you both.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Thanks Marius
Joe McLaughlin says
Agree, good comment.
Steve G says
Great piece as always, many thanks to you both. One question regarding how the incidents are presented to TYW, He stated –
“If Oh’s had been awarded as a penalty, I wouldn’t have necessarily said this outcome would have been incorrect – but ultimately, I felt the decision not to recommend an on field review wasn’t clearly wrong either.”
Putting my statistician hat on, is he asked whether the decisions given are correct, or is he asked what decision he would have made given the evidence presented ? I think there is an important distinction as there is a large variance in what can be justified as correct which would skew the results, and also knowing the actual outcome could skew the results. The reply above seems to infer it’s the former so just wondering.
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Hi Steve and thank you.
Obviously there is artifice here in that he is not in the ground and did not see what the referee saw which is why he tries his best to interpret that from the available images. I have to go with either SPFL Youtube highlights or BBC Sportscene which is only up for a week or clips fans of all clubs post on socials if there has been a contentious issue missed by the highlights, or i can direct record video from my Celtic TV subscription.
I suppose he is marking homework. Was the decision arrived at correct as far as you can discern from the footage. That allows him license to disagree even where you could say that is a 50/50 subjective call say. he will usually always frame his response in terms like that and is very transparent in that regard.`His own style of refereeing will obviously influence. My main concern is that he is independent from the Glasgow football fug. He often says things like “i wouldn;t have given that but can understand why the referee did give it based on a, b,c.
Don’t know if that answers! but thanks for asking
Damian says
Perhaps, in light of what you and James were saying on the pod, that the formula for adding or subtracting expected points from these decisions could factor in whether the YW is saying, ‘that’s wrong’ or ‘I wouldn’t have given that but…’?
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
I think it is better to try and keep it simple and certainly not to get into the trying to “codify” e.g. the YWs orange card concept = ie give variable points based on levels of certainty.
Models must all be inherently over simplistic but so long as they are “fair” and as accurate as they can be there will always have to be an acceptance over the level of imprecision
That’s where sample size and criteria come in
Damian says
Yes, fair enough. I just mean given that quite a few advantages to Rangers picked up by the YW fit into the ‘I wouldn’t have, but…’ category. These incidents in total are very few but they have quite an impact on the running total.
But, I follow what you’re saying.
On another note:
I will soon get over suffering through a frustrating home defeat to Hearts (I’ve seen those before).
I will ultimately get over throwing the league away, should that come to pass.
But, I hope never to forget the day when Santa was booed onto the pitch at halftime.
Steve G says
Thanks for responding Alan, yes that answers my question.
Speaking generally, I do think that approach to testing hypothesis leads to a form of response bias. Can you justify someone else’s action is a different question to would you have acted the same way, and is more much likely to get a positive response. A string of 30/70 decisions can and should be endorsed by governance as a pass as they are justifiable, but does not give the full representation of what is going on.
Possibly an item to keep in mind as one of your healthy list of disclaimers !
Really enjoy your input on ACSOM btw, gives a different flavour to the episode when you are on, but then I’m a bit of a stats geek.