Honest Mistakes – Week 29 – “(it) does not feel quite right”

At 0:00

Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Motherwell.

Ball over the top of the Rangers back line, sees Motherwell wide man, latch onto the pass before crossing for Van Veen to score at the far post.

From the one freeze frame angle provided there is a question of offside at play here.  It appears to me that the Motherwell’s player’s knee is fractionally further forward and closer to goal than the back or legs of the Rangers centre back and I would say this a narrow offside offence.

I’ve found myself loading up the freeze frame provided on the Youtube highlights and putting it side by side to the VAR graphic provided with the lines imposed.

To my eyes there is a split-second delay between the two images and as such body & ball position are microscopically different when looking at the two images side by side.  I still found myself believing the player is offside when looking at the first footage but feeling a player level, onside call using the VAR image – which seems baffling to be honest.

There is a slight uneasy feeling in my head that the line used on the VAR image isn’t overlaid at the correct, parallel angle and as such, the Motherwell could well be benefitting from this, slightly unparallel line.

But then is it my own eyes/mind that are not quite in sync and should we just blindly trust the Var approved image provided??

Assuming the VAR is 100% accurate ( a bold statement I know) then I would have to give the Motherwell player the tightest of benefit of the doubt decisions I have yet made and say ONSIDE, CORRECT DECISION.

Outcome

At 2:26

The ball is played down the channel for the Rangers player, Sakala to run on to. He squares it and the ball ultimately ends up in the back of the net.

This appears to be a very close decision that goes in Rangers favour, as VAR adjudge the Rangers player to be level.

However, upon closer scrutiny, I am not convinced this was the correct outcome. When the image is paused at the point of contact made by the original pass, my gut feeling is that Sakala has just crept offside. What makes this a difficult decision to call is that the pitch markings do not appear to run parallel with 18-yard line. Interesting the separate still freeze frame image provided to me that VAR produced to make the onside call, also has questions to answer around where the lines have been drawn.

I understand there is some controversy around this particular image already and having analysed the footage I am inclined to feel this image does not feel quite right.

Law 11 states that the HANDS & ARMS of ALL players are not considered when determining offside (on the basis you cannot legally score with these parts of the body).

For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

However, the line drawn by VAR appears to line up with the end of the slightly extended arm of the Motherwell defender when making the onside call. If Law 11 is applied correctly, then line should have been marginally further back parallel with the defender’s ‘armpit’ area – in which case I would then suspect the VAR decision would have been to rule marginally as Offside.

Verdict: INCORRECT DECISION. Unusual scenario, but I feel Var actually got this wrong and that the goal should have been disallowed for a tight offside decision.

Outcome

At 4:03

Slattery appears to raise an arm in a defensive motion to shield himself from an incoming Cantwell challenge. Cantwell drops to the floor and Slattery is shown a 2nd yellow card, for an offence committed in a reckless manner.

Not sure, I agree with the decision here. I appreciate there is an element of subjectivity with these kinds of contact and, on the day, the match referee felt the raised arm was a reckless offence.

However, what I saw at full speed, was a player in possession of the ball, having the situational awareness to know a challenge was incoming and so twisting his body round, to shield himself and protect the ball. At no time does Slattery look up and know where Cantwell’s body or face is. Player’s offence outstretch their rear arm in anticipation of the that challenge coming in from behind.

Cantwell charges into this arm and for me the referee would have been within his rights to not even award the free kick or just sell the contact as accidental and not that of a reckless offence.

Clearly the referee saw this incident differently, but I feel the wrong outcome was arrived at here.

Verdict: INCORRECT DECISION. Nothing here that warranted a 2nd yellow card.

Outcome

At 0:57

Carter-Vickers takes a boot to the face for his troubles which sees Youan pick up the 2nd yellow card.

Usually when a player kicks another player in the face, the expected outcome is either a red card for serious foul play (endangering players safety) or at least a yellow card for committing a reckless challenge. So, on this basis, you could say the yellow is expected.

However, I do have an element of sympathy for Youan. He seems to know that Carter-Vickers is stood upright behind him. So, he’s probably just tried to kick the ball blindly, not knowing that Carter-Vickers will actually attempt a diving header to play the ball.

A general rule of thumb he, is that the lower the attempted header is, the less likely we are dealing with a red/yellow card offence.

On the day, the referee could possibly have managed this particular foul without the 2nd yellow card, but on the basis that the boot does clearly catch the diving Carter-Vickers in the face, I would just about concur with the 2nd yellow card being brandished for the reckless challenge.

Verdict: CORRECT DECISION.

Outcome

At 1:33

Initial on field decision: after Var review, penalty awarded for a shirt pull by Starfelt.

One of those areas of contact that can be initially missed by the referee in a congested box, but I believe VAR is right to recommend the referee reviews Starfelt actions here. He clearly pulls back on the shirt of the Hibs player and in doing so, impedes his ability to challenge for the head.

Verdict: CORRECT DECISION to award the penalty

Outcome

At 2:40

Initial on field decision: Penalty awarded to Celtic

Carter-Vickers tries to wriggle free from the attempts of Hanlon, who never once looks at the ball.

As we see quite often at corner kicks, the objective is to not allow the attacking player a free attempt to head/strike the ball. Unfortunately for Hanlon, he momentarily loses his man, which then results in him reaching out and grabbing/pulling Carter-Vickers’s shoulders. He then let’s go but Carter-Vickers has already begun to lose his balance.

In this situation I am comfortable there has been enough unfair grappling by Hanlon that exceeds what is normally accepted in these situations and the penalty is the expected outcome.

Verdict: CORRECT DECISION.

Outcome