The Derby weekend was overshadowed by more post-match controversy. Most of the noise come from unskilled partisans.
Thankfully we have the Yorkshire Whistler. Although given Sheffield Wednesday’s start to the season it is likely his mood isn’t great!
Special thanks, nonetheless.
The impact of big calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
SPFL Game Week Four
03/09/23 The Rangers vs Celtic
Incident 1
| Referee | Don Robertson |
| Game Minute | 25th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Kyogo is pushed by Butland then Goldson in the box |
| Outcome | No decision |
| Evidence | (3) Rangers 0-1 Celtic | Bhoys Take Old Firm Victory | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 1:00 |
Incident 2
| Referee | Don Robertson |
| Game Minute | 28th |
| Score At Time | 0-0 |
| Incident | Roofe scores for TRFC |
| Outcome | Goal awarded overturned to foul to Celtic after VAR review |
| Evidence | (3) Rangers 0-1 Celtic | Bhoys Take Old Firm Victory | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 1:19 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Roofe scores
Initial on field decision: Goal disallowed for a foul on Lagerbielke in the build up I suspect this was viewed as a contentious decision by both sides at the time and I can imagine has split opinion. My first reaction in real time was that the Rangers player had not committed an offence and had ‘picked the pocket’ of the away player so to speak. That appears to be on field referees thought as well, but VAR asks him to review the footage. In slow motion you can see that the Rangers player actually gets his foot in front of the Celtic player’s boot as he goes to kick it. It might seem harsh on the Rangers player as he hasn’t actually made the contact on the Celtic player but in the context of this particular incident I can see why the foul is awarded. It is the Celtic player who is already in possession of the ball (as opposed to be a free ball up for grabs) and the Rangers player has to stretch his leg around from behind, whilst Lagerbielke is already in motion to the play the ball. If the Rangers player made contact with the ball first before Lagerbielke’s foot I would say no foul. But he didn’t and as such has impeded the player in possession of the ball and interferes with his ability to play said ball. Overall, a subjective decision that I’m sure has split opinion, but once overturned I would say there is enough evidence to support the VAR decision to award the free kick. Verdict: CORRECT decision |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 3
| Referee | Don Robertson |
| Game Minute | 80th |
| Score At Time | 0-1 |
| Incident | Maeda and Cantwell challenge in the box |
| Outcome | No decision |
| Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2023/24: 03/09/2023
At 12:00 |
| Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Maeda & Cantwell challenge in box
Initial on field decision: No foul Maeda gets his body in between Cantwell and ball. Cantwell appears to bounce off his shoulder and goes to ground easily. Just plain old upper body strength here and clearly no foul committed. Verdict: CORRECT decision |
| Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
Congratulations are due to Don Robertson and team for getting the big calls correct in the big game.
Whilst surprising they were awarded the tie given Alan Muir and Robertson’s performances when Celtic met Kilmarnock not two weeks ago, you must give praise where it is due.
A worldwide Sky TV audience and mass scrutiny certainly has everyone on their best behaviour!
The (a cynic might say faux) outrage over the disallowed Roofe goal seems way out of keeping with the nature of the incident – a clear and easy foul to award. That performance from the home side won’t deflect itself I suppose. Phew! Keep your head down Micky!
No major changes to the SPFL title race in terms of week four impacts on expected points.
The Rangers have 0.63 less points than expected due to the impact of Honest Mistakes.
Celtic lead by four points after four matches.
Honest i have to laugh at the ranjurs fans and of course Neil McCann who said the goal should have stood because its a daft rule but if it was celtic that scored that goal i bet McCann would have pulled his rule book out thats what he done the last time on sky the guy is just bitter b…… who never tells the truth on TV about celtic so anyway ranjurs fans forget that sands got a penalty against st mirren for the same foul as celtic but no one in the media have said a thing about it the media are just as bad dirty bitter celtic haters they jounralists for daily scumhun record and The hun Sun dirty rats the lot of them..
Yes, they all seemed like good calls to me.
The disallowed goal struck me as a clear example of what VAR is for: it was highly understandable that the foul had been missed in real time, and so VAR was needed. The foul wasn’t cynical, it was possibly even accidental. But the advantage was gained by fouling an opponent who was in possession of the ball.
Thought this article was pretty clear from a more level-headed and reasonable Rangers fan perspective:
https://www.rangersreview.co.uk/news/23764453.rangers-vs-celtic-ref-watch-don-robertsons-performance-analysed/
The fact that the only goal of the game was scored in time that was added on specifically because of the VAR call is just beautiful.
That was a particularly sweet irony.
I’m really not sure why the disallowed goal is still being talked about. At the time it looked ok, but as YW states, the VAR did his job. I’ve tried explaining this to people by if a winger is going to cross it and the defender just puts a foot in to stop him kicking the ball, it’s a foul. You’re meant to play the ball, not the man.
I think it was 100% accidental, but then I think most simple fouls are.
The Celtic fan in me wanted a penalty for Kyogo, but the impartial YW view has made me look at contact, consequence, intent and he’s probably right. Butland just trying to get past him, Kyogo nowhere near a position to be involved with the ball, and it wasn’t violent conduct.
However, the more that lot think they lost due to VAR instead of them being a poor, long ball team playing a 6-0-4 formation the better for us
Alan, wasn’t sure where to put a question for the podcast as I’m not on twitter so I’ll throw it in here. It might be my imagination but it feels like we seem to overcome negative or very tight xg differentials and come away with a win quite a lot since Gerrard came in? (With the exception of the COVID season) Any thoughts on why this is?
I can’t accept the explanation that it’s ok to push an opposing player to the ground because you feel he’s too close to you. I’m beginning to think the Whistler isn’t a very good judge of what’s a foul and what isn’t sometimes. Kyogo was clearly impeded. If Kyogo had pushed Butland to the ground would the Whistler be ok with that too?
I’m afraid the invading space excuse is no reason to ignore two blatant fouls, isn’t it a strikers job to be in that space, precisely to get in their way and use this to help score a goal?, nonsense this time I’m afraid. There are times common sense can be used and subjective judgements applied, but this is not one of those instances, blatant fouls and no less.
You didn’t do game week 3? Interested in the view of the Simon Murray effort that was spilled by Butland, when the match was 0-0. The ref blew for a foul on Souttar, but only after Butland had spilled the ball and Jordan White was about to score
From memory the whistle was blown before goal scored so technically nothing to review
“The (a cynic might say faux) outrage over the disallowed Roofe goal seems way out of keeping with the nature of the incident – a clear and easy foul to award. That performance from the home side won’t deflect itself I suppose. Phew! Keep your head down Micky!”
It seems like Micky isn’t escaping the bealeing in both stands and boardroom. but that’s not what’s happening.
This is all about positioning and planting a deceitful narrative that they were wronged so that when the inevitable wrong call to benefit them happens then its simply “it evenning itself out”.
So it is ok to push any player who is in your personal space or in your way? Just imagine if a forward (in the box) were to push a defender at a corner kick because the defender was in the space that the forward wanted to take or vice versa. I think it would be a foul all day long any where on the pitch?
Let them think it was a bad decision, stops them finding the real cause of their failures and addressing them.
Also I’m going to change my name on this to RefMartin as there’s another Martin on here and I don’t want to cause confusion. Mostly I’m giving a ref view so it makes sense and stops him changing his name.
Just on to this after it was mentioned on ACSOM – what a fantastic resource and very interesting to have an independent view of the matter. Thanks!