Week two of the SPFL and another round of big calls.
Let’s get fell in.
The impact of that call being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
06/08/22 Ross County vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 65th |
Incident | Hart pushes over Tillson in the penalty area |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | (4) Ross County 1-3 Celtic | Furuhashi, Jenz & Abada Goals Seal The Three Points | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 2:39 |
Incident 2
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 84th |
Incident | Jenz goes into the crowd after scoring |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | (4) Ross County 1-3 Celtic | Furuhashi, Jenz & Abada Goals Seal The Three Points | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 3:00 |
06/08/22 – The Rangers vs Kilmarnock
Incident 1
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute |
Incident | Power appears to hand ball in the box |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | (4) Rangers 2-0 Kilmarnock | Goals From Colak and Morelos Seal Home Win For Rangers | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 3:05 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | The ball hits Power in the penalty area
Initial on field decision: No foul committed The Rangers player crosses the ball from left and it hits the first Kilmarnock player and then ricochets onto what appears to be the arm of the covering defender. As this is first hand ball incident scrutinised so far this season, lets recap what the current IFAB laws state: It is an offence if the player: *deliberately touches the ball with hand/arm for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball * touches the ball with hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm, is not a consequence or justifiable by the players body movement for that specific situation * scores in the opponents goal directly from their hand/arm even if accidental or * scores immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm even if accidental. So, we will be using this framework to consider if handball incidents seen in the coming season should be penalised or not. In short, it was correct not to award this as a handball offence. The player who’s arm the ball hit, is at very close proximity and can’t anticipate the contact of his teammate. His body shape is moving towards his goal and his arm is pointed straight down (natural body shape) and just as the ball hits him, he attempts to bring his arm behind his body to avoid the contact (not making the body shape unnaturally bigger) Verdict: Correct decision not to penalise the contact as handball |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
Referee | Kevin Clancy |
Game Minute | 88th |
Incident | Morelos scores for TRFC |
Outcome | Goal to TRFC |
Evidence | (4) Rangers 2-0 Kilmarnock | Goals From Colak and Morelos Seal Home Win For Rangers | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 3:45 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Morelos scores for Rangers
Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers ORIGINAL VERDICT: Morelos onside at last point of contact, correct decision to award goal. Amended Decision (12/08/22) I thought I had fully digested the latest clarification around what is deemed a ‘deflection’ and what is deemed ‘deliberate play’ in relation to the current guidance around Law 11 offside. When I appraised the footage yesterday, I was assessing based on my interpretation that the defender had demonstrated ‘deliberate play’ by attempting to clear the ball as listed below. The guidance states: ‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: • passing the ball to a team-mate; or • gaining possession of the ball; or • clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it). However, full disclosure, I had not fully digested the footnote underneath this passage: The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball: • The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it • The ball was not moving quickly • The direction of the ball was not unexpected • The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control • A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air. Re-evaluating my original conclusion using this updated framework, I have to now conclude that the defender did not have time to coordinate his movement i.e he was instinctively stretching. Therefore, his contact should now be recategorized as a deflection and not deliberate play. I am also more confident have watched the footage many times over that the last contact was made by the defender. On this basis, I would like to change my verdict to that of an incorrect decision: Morelos should have been adjudged offside and the goal should not have stood. I can only apologise to your readers for incorrectly interpreting current IFAB guidance. It just goes to show even an experienced, active referee can still get caught out with the frequent updates and guidance notes now being applies to the Laws of the Game! Consider today a school day for me 😉 Verdict: Incorrect decision to award the goal. Offside and free kick to Kilmarnock. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
TRFC +0.2 xPts |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler. Fine form as always and it takes a fully functioning human to admit an error. All the faultless ones can throw rocks.
Four calls this week from the Men In Black and one wrong. Some homework for the officials on the new amendments.
Slight change to the Expected Points position, then.
The Rangers have 0.45 LESS points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes.
The top two are level on points after 2 games.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE WAS AMENDED ON 12TH AUGUST FOLLOWING NEW GUDIANCE ON OFFSIDE BEING ISSUED IN JULY 2022 THAT CHANGED THE MORELOS OFFSIDE DECISION VERSUS KILMARNOCK.
Nick66 says
Was the Yorkshire Whistler born in Govan? LOL. Once again the even handed use (and explanation) of the rules help us to accept the green tinted specs are not always correct, however, we shall still call out the Refs regardless.
John says
Thanks to you & your Yorkshire whistler.
I always enjoy the dissection & analysis of contentious incidents.
That said, there were two incidents in Celtic’s Ross Co game that I thought were serious enough to warrant a referee intervention. Both incidents were waved on.
The first was just before HT when Maeda met a cross from the left with the outside of his foot & teir keeper made a good save at his near post. When you loo at this incident in real time, you can see that the defender marking Maeda was outplayed and late with his attempt ot connect with the ball. He missed the ball completely and kicked Maeda solidly on the left calf. Maeda went down and as we know didn’t come out for the 2nd half.
The kick on Maeda was as clear a foul as you’ll see & if it had occurred anywhere else on the field would have been a foul AND a yellow to the culprit. The fact that the referee saw nothing & did nothing astonished me. This should have been a penalty to Celtic & a yellow to the defender.
The second incident was in the buildup to our first goal. Greg Taylor was involved in that buildup & just as he got the ball away a Ross Co defender came sliding in at full stretch, with his leg leg straight & his studs showing. His foot was about 9 inches off the ground & had it made contact with Taylors leg, it would very likely have resulted in a serious injury.
Once again the referee saw & did nothing regarding this “tackle”. Had the ref allowed the advantage ? I honestly don’t know , but at least I would expect him to return to the offending player at the first opportunity to show him a card – red in my opinion.
It baffles me that easy decisions such as this are missed altogether or overlooked by Scottish referees.
Maeda was perhaps too honest for his own good & if so, has to be commended, but the incident was very clear to me & a stonewaller.
The 2nd incident was one where a home crowd could persuade referees to blow for a foul but both incidents seem to show the part time refs in Scotland in a very poor light.
I wonder what our Yorkshire whistler might think.
sonny says
we are getting a bit upset anywhere near the penalty area , gosh they will try to get someone
sent off for scratching their bum. they will try to say he had his hand in the wrong place
this is turning into a nightmare thank goodness it will indispensable be proved true or
false , by var watch the fun then ,