On Thursday 28th March the following podcast was recorded on the A Celtic State of Mind platform. You can view it here or listen wherever you consume your pods.
For the fourth piece as a follow-up, I consider what the timing is around when penalties are awarded, and how impactful they are.
I have established whether awards were correct or not and shown how penalty awards relate to a team’s ability to get into the opposition box.
Impact of Penalties
As regards the penalties awarded, I would expect the impact in terms of expected points (xPts) given the time of the penalty and the score at that time to be broadly similar between Celtic and Rangers given their dominance over the rest of the league.
I analysed the 275 penalties awarded in the 2020-21 to 2023-24 season to date. Note that Hamilton Academical and Dundee are excluded from the summaries due to only being in the league for a single full season. All teams who have been in the league for three of the four seasons under review are included in the results.
Based on the time the penalty was awarded and the score at the time, The Rangers had the highest positive expected points (xPts) from penalty awards with 18.57 from their 39 penalties. Celtic were next on 13.56.
The Rangers also had the least expected impact from penalties conceded with 3.27 expected points being estimated to be lost. St Johnstone were second with 7.61 and Celtic 4th with 8.38.
In terms of the overall differentials in expected points between those awarded and conceded:
The Rangers benefit from over 15 xPts from penalty awards overall. This is 2.95 times higher than that of second-placed Celtic despite the Hoops winning two of the three titles in the seasons completed.
Indeed, the Z-Score of -2.61 indicates that The Rangers’ score is outside the 95th percentile and is statistically significant, the only score in this analysis to be so.
The penalties Rangers get in their favour are significantly more impactful (beneficial) than those awarded to the rest of the league.
Timing of Penalty Awards
I would expect that in terms of when penalties are awarded, there would be little difference between Celtic and The Rangers as regards the average minute of the game of each award for and against.
Here is a comparison of the average time in the match Celtic and The Rangers are awarded and concede penalties:
On average. Celtic get awarded a penalty in the 59th minute yet The Rangers’ average is the 48th minute – 11 minutes earlier. The league average is the 53rd minute.
On average Celtics opponents get awarded a penalty in the 45th minute but The Rangers don’t get penalised until the 67th minute – 22 minutes later.
An earlier penalty award means the potential benefit of a 0.77 expected goals (xG) shot arrives sooner. Football is a low-scoring sport and neither Celtic nor The Rangers lose many games from winning positions. In the period under review, Celtic have drawn 10 matches from winning positions and lost just two (out of 136 matches). The Rangers have drawn 10 also and lost just one (out of 134 matches). Therefore, the earlier the goal for, the better.
The differential between when teams are awarded and concede a penalty on average is:
The Rangers, on average, receive a penalty 25 minutes earlier than they concede. Whereas Celtic, equally dominant in the league, receive a penalty 10 minutes later than they concede one, on average.
The Z-Score for Rangers is -2.31 so beyond two standard deviations from the mean and highly statistically significant. It is the only teams’ score to be so.
Plotting the average time of penalties received and conceded:
Rangers are the clear outlier, with Celtic having the least favourable profile. Given the extent both sides dominate the rest of the league, the disparity appears even more significant.
One significant pattern may be coincidence and two may be bad luck, but three?
We are starting to see clear evidence forming of a pattern of assistance for one club. But heh, the “Penalty to Rangers!” meme must be indulged.
Next up: do red card trends buck the pattern?
Note: data correct up to 3rd January 2024.
The current score in each game should also be scrutinised. IMO Celtic get penalties when they’re not needed ie when winning comfortably, however Sevco mostly seem to get theirs when the game is tight.
Celtic’s penalties are then held up to show that they get them for the refs to be able to say Celtics penalties are as often awarded compared to Sevco!!!!
that’s exactly what this piece and yesterdays is evidencing
That is a magnificently bright light you are shinning into the sfa dark room #Chapeaux
Tremendous work.
I noticed the SFSA had mentioned your appearance on the ASCOM podcast, have any other non Celtic sites shown any interest?
Maybe a Hibs one
To be honest many of the Celtic pods and blogs are really snooty and parochial so i don’t hold out much hope! I’ll witter on to almost anyone, me.
Excellent analysis – as the game becomes increasingly data driven it becomes harder for bias to remain unseen.
Would that being seen were enough to make a difference in Scottish football.
The old adage “sunlight is the best disinfectant” is no more true in this scenario than it is in microbiology. Data being released is one thing. Data being scrutinised by the right people is another. The SFA currently have no intention of allowing scrutiny, oversight or external review. It’s a closed shop with a stale culture. THAT must change before we will see anything else change.
Change is coming Alan.
Your research will be a massive part of the battering ram that smashes open the closed doors of dishonesty that clouds our game. Keep it up mate
HH
Kind regards
Jim