Weeks 5 and 6 of the SPFL Premier Division contentious moments, including those from the first Glasgow Derby of the season. Take it away Yorkshire Whistler.
The impact of calls being incorrect can then be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.
27/08/22 The Rangers vs Ross County
Incident 1
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 10th |
Incident | Goldson goes down in the box |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | Rangers 4-0 Ross County | Colak Double Helps Seal Inspired Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 0:44 |
Incident 2
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 15th |
Incident | Sands challenge on Hiwula |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | Rangers 4-0 Ross County | Colak Double Helps Seal Inspired Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 1:00 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Sands challenge on Hiwula
Initial on field decision: No foul committed. Hiwula latches onto a through ball, Sands is covering. Contact is made and Hiwula drops to the floor. Some sympathy for the referee as from his perspective, the one decision you don’t want to have to make is when a long, quick counterattack clearance is played. This inevitably means you are further from play than in most other situations and have to put a sprint in to get up with play as soon as possible.
Interestingly the ref’s body language and gesture of ‘arms out shrugging shoulders’ is telling us that he doesn’t know what contact if any has been made due to the distance, he is having to make the decision from. This isn’t necessarily poor refereeing in terms of positioning to give you the best chance of seeing an incident but more having to make a call on the long, counter ball at short notice.
If the referee he sees this as a foul, it’s a DOGSO (denying obvious goal scoring opportunity) and a red card offence, so the ref needs to be sure of the foul, which he can’t be due to the distance.
In real time, Sands left arm does for a second appear to be on the striker’s waist but it’s hard to tell if any real contact or pull is made by Sands.
The assistant referee can’t help out either as it is on the wrong side of the pitch for him to make a credible decision.
The slow-motion replay is also not the best angle so is inconclusive.
Verdict: Correct decision not to award the foul. Due to inconclusive footage, I don’t see enough to overrule the initial decision, but it is not clear cut either way. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 3
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 54th |
Incident | Ross County player blocks Wright cross |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | Rangers 4-0 Ross County | Colak Double Helps Seal Inspired Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 3:25 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Ross County defender blocks Wright cross.
Initial on field decision: No foul committed. Interesting hand ball decision to be made here. As we know already, accidental handball on its own is not a punishable offence. So, it is case of deciding when the handball is made, did it make the player’s body unnaturally bigger and not justifiable by the players movement for that specific situation.
The defender is sliding to block the ball and the Rangers player crosses the ball behind him, which is where his outstretched arm is. If the arm isn’t there, the cross arrives as intended. So, for me, the body shape is unnaturally bigger, I can’t’ justify why his arms are trailing behind so I would have awarded the penalty
Verdict: Incorrect decision: Penalty kick would have been expected outcome. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
TRFC -0.08 xPts |
Incident 4
Referee | Don Robertson |
Game Minute | 58th |
Incident | Colak scores for TRFC |
Outcome | Goal to TRFC |
Evidence | Rangers 4-0 Ross County | Colak Double Helps Seal Inspired Win | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 3:50 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Colak scores for Rangers
Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Rangers Colak receives a through ball just inside the 18-yard box and scores. Slight question of offside here. From the video replays, it is my belief that the left bank is deepest positioned defender and is the one that is playing Colak onside at the time the pass is made
Verdict: Correct decision. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
28/08/22 Dundee United vs Celtic
Incident 1
Referee | Steven McLean |
Game Minute | 2nd |
Incident | Fletcher catches Hart with his studs in the head |
Outcome | Foul to Celtic and YC to Fletcher |
Evidence | Dundee United 0-9 Celtic | Kyogo Hat-Trick in Celtic’s Biggest Ever Away Win! | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 0:01 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Fletcher challenges Hart
Initial on field decision: Free kick to Celtic, yellow card shown to Fletcher Hart parries a shot, Fletcher slides in as the ball looks like it will break lose. Hart reacts again and beats the ball away, only to receive Fletcher’s boot to the face for his efforts. The slow-motion replay clearly shows the tip of Fletcher’s boot catch Hart in the head but in real time, I have sympathy for Fletcher as he has genuine chance of reacting to the ball first. It is not a challenge with excess force and as he catches Hart in the face, I believe this tackle was reckless in nature and the caution was sufficient punishment.
Verdict: Correct decision to caution Fletcher |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
Referee | Steve McLean |
Game Minute | 45th |
Incident | Jota scores for Celtic |
Outcome | Goal to Celtic |
Evidence | Dundee United 0-9 Celtic | Kyogo Hat-Trick in Celtic’s Biggest Ever Away Win! | cinch Premiership – YouTube
At 06:12 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Jota scores for Celtic
Initial on field decision: Goal awarded to Celtic Jota latches onto a ball across the face of goal and slots home from close range. The question of offside is raised again here. Jota certainly appears to be half a yard in front of the Dundee Utd backline as the pass is played to him. Also, we must look at the position of the ball here, if Jota is not nearer to the goal than the ball is played, then he is deemed onside. From the camera angles presented Jota appears to be just in front of the ball and defenders and so is narrowly in an offside position as the pass is made. Verdict: incorrect decision. Goal should have been ruled out for offside. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
Celtic +0.05 xPts |
03/09/22 Celtic vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee | Nick Walsh |
Game Minute | 14th |
Incident | Abada goes down under challenge from Kent |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 03/09/2022
At 05:06 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Abada goes down under a challenge from Kent
Initial on field decision: No foul committed Abada breaks into the box and as he attempts to play the ball, his feet connect with Kent and he goes down. For me Kent as defender is doing what he needs to in terms of closing down Abada as quickly as he can. But he doesn’t actually make an attempt to challenge the Celtic forward, rather it is Abada’s foot as he pulls it back to shoot that kicks Kent. It is a coming together, but I don’t believe Kent has actually committed a foul here.
Verdict: Correct decision. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Incident 2
Referee | Nick Walsh |
Game Minute | 54th |
Incident | Jota goes down after clash with Goldson |
Outcome | No decision |
Evidence | BBC iPlayer – Sportscene – Premiership Highlights 2022/23: 03/09/2022
At 11:02 |
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict | Jota goes down after a clash with Goldson.
Initial on field decision: No foul committed Jota feels contact from Goldson’s arm and goes down holding his face. In real time, this appears to be accidentally and innocuous. Upon watching the replay, it does appear that Goldson raises his arm slightly and this is what catches the Celtic forward. Goldson’s eyes don’t seem to be looking at Jota at any point, although he probably instinctively knows approximately where Jota is. Upon review, I will give the Rangers man the benefit of the doubt here. There is no deliberate swing of the elbow or arm and at no time do I feel that Goldson is intentionally looking for his arm to catch the Celtic man. Only he will know if the slight raise of the arm was deliberate or not.
Verdict: Correct decision not to award the foul or produce a card. |
Expected Points
Outcome |
No impact |
Summary
My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.
A couple of wrong calls but because of the game state at the time, minimal impact.
The Rangers should have had a penalty in the 54th minute against Ross County when already 2 goals ahead. Given the state of play, that would only have been worth 0.08 xPts.
Similarly, Celtic getting a 4th goal in the 45th Minute against Dundee United from an offside position, adds only 0.05 xPts to their total.
Slight change to the Expected Points position, then.
The Rangers have 0.01 MORE points than expected due to the cumulative impact of Honest Mistakes and Celtic 0.05 MORE.
Celtic lead by 5 points after 6 matches.
SteveNaive says
The YW has been got at !
Lancashire Whistler, ( not Lanarkshire! ) for third opinion
celticbynumbers@btinternet.com says
Hi all – the Sands incident against Ross County will generate a lot of comment i am sure. I myself was surprised and asked for clarification. Here is what i received:
“I understand entirely your perspective that all the contact seems to be initiated by the trailing defender. My reluctance to say I would have overturned the on field decision is not based on my belief that a clear foul has not been committed, but rather the two angles presented are inconclusive that a foul was committed.
Referees, fans and everyone in between will differing opinions around what level of contact, within a contact sport, is acceptable and what is not acceptable and thus meets the threshold of a ‘foul’.
Defenders will naturally attempt to get the body between an attacker and the ball and use contact to thwart the attackers attempts to get a shot off on goal or play the ball to a team mate etc.
I see the Rangers defender using his body and I then see his arm come across the back of the RC player, but watching the footage presented I don’t at any time see a clear pull & then a split second later both players crash to the ground.
It is very possible that a foul has been committed and under a fully implemented video review system, with more and closer angles accessible, your view could well be supported & I would have no issues with that outcome.
But based on what I am viewing and taking into account my own thresholds/tolerances for ‘contact’ & ‘fouls’ – I still remain seated on the proverbial fence that it is inconclusive to see the clear foul.”
Holysmokes says
Lost faith in YW. It’s a clear foul and last man red. If the ref doesn’t see it he doesn’t give it. I get that, although I think he should see it, but with the camera angles it’s clearly a foul.
The YW defends the refs too much and always tries to justify their decisions – even sometimes when the decision is wrong.
Martin says
To call it a “last man red” shows how ingrained ignorant pundit views are within the general public. My view- it’s a foul and a DOGSO red, but the ref has no chance of seeing it clearly enough to be absolutely sure. And if you’re going to send someone off you need to be sure. With proper VAR Sands would be off…but NO! He wouldn’t be, because t’s unlikely this would be called by VAR for review. VAR should be implemented like TMO in Rugby- ref should be able to just call for review if not sure what happened. People talk about it “ruining the flow” but really it just solves these types of problem.