The Huddle Breakdown: Yorkshire Whistler

Honest Mistakes 2025-26: Week 35

Alan Morrison — Wed, 06 May 2026 11:15:50 GMT

It all got frenzied over the weekend as Celtic travelled to Hibernian and Heart of Midlothian hosted The Rangers.

The Yorkshire Whistler, after the culmination of a tumultuous Sheffield Wednesday season, was happy with the distraction.

03/05/26 Hibernian vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 19^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: McGrath challenges Johnston

Outcome: Foul to Celtic, YC to McGrath upgraded to RC by VAR

Evidence:

At 0:25

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

McGrath challenges Johnston

IOD: Foul to Celtic. McGrath initially cautioned but upgraded to sending off after VAR review

McGrath slides in late and clearly fouls the Celtic player.

Initially seen by the ref in real time as a reckless challenge, the replay shows that McGraths studs are high and catch the player on inside of his leg above the ankle. This is correctly identified as a tackle with excessive force/endangering player safety.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 45^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Newell scores for Hibs

Outcome: Goal to Hibs

Evidence:

At 3:02

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Newell scores for Hibs

IOD: Goal awarded

The ball lands to Newell in the box and he scores from a few yards. Surprised this one was allowed to stand, as the ball clearly hits his right arm and then he scores from his next touch. Whilst I agree the handball contact is accidental and natural body shape, the law 12 of the game clearly states it is a handball offence if immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, a goal Is scored, even if accidental.

I can understand this not being seen in real time on pitch but can’t fathom why this was not spotted by VAR.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision - goal should not have stood. Defensive free kick expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic -0.7 xPts

Incident 3

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 53^rd

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Campbell challenges Nygren in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Campbell and Nygren challenge in box

IOD: Goal kick to Hibs

Campbell attempts to shepherd the ball out for a goal kick under pressure from Nygren. Defenders are allowed to use their body to protect the ball to an extent but as soon as this blocking motion becomes a straight arm push, then a foul is committed in my opinion.

I suspect the reason the referee allowed play to continue was down to the view that blocking motion becomes a push as the Celtic player is crossing the touch line and no longer inside the field of play. I suspect the ref believes as the Celtic was unlikely to have been able to play the ball, then the overall passage of play wasn’t impacted.

However, laws of the game are clear :

“If a careless challenge is committed off the pitch (outside the field of play) while the ball is in play, the match is restarted with a direct free kick or penalty kick on the boundary line (touchline or goal line) nearest to where the offence occurred.”

For me the extension of arms meant a pushing foul had been committed and therefore a penalty was the expected outcome.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Penalty kick to Celtic the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic -0.62 xPts

04/05/26 Heart of Midlothian vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 84^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Gassama goes down in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

At 14:20

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Gassama goes down in the box

IOD: No decision

As a ball is swung into the Hearts 18 yard box, Gassama goes to ground after some lower leg contact. From the replay shown, it appears to be accidental mutual contact and it doesn’t appear that a clear foul is committed by the Hearts man.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Things took a slightly unpalatable turn at Easter Road. David Dickinson (“Digger” to his Ibrox pals) missed the Jamie McGrath red card challenge and only awarded a yellow. Douglas Ross was certain Daizen Maeda was offside for the first goal despite being yards behind the play.

Who would have thought having a fan of The Rangers and a Conservative & Unionist Party leader in control could cause issues in such a game? Shocked, I tell ye!

But it was the lack of support from the VAR room (Don Robertson) that has left the Yorkshire Whistler in a state where he “cannot fathom” some of those decisions. Regular readers will know the Yorkshire Whistler is very measured, professional and empathetic to the referee’s perspective.

It has been a hugely successful season for refereeing under Willie Collum in that in general we have moved from Crawford Allan’s patterns of assistance for one club, to a situation whereby all clubs seem to suffer more or less equally from the low-quality refereeing.

Here’s hoping, with the titles and European places still to be decided, we have not regressed on that front.

The Rangers have been hampered by incorrect calls to the tune of -1.73 expected points, and Celtic -1.32 xPts, a difference of 0.41 xPts.

After 35 matches, Celtic leads by four points.

Honest Mistakes 2025-26 - Week 34

Alan Morrison — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 14:25:28 GMT

The Big Split commenced as Celtic faced Falkirk and The Rangers were at home to Motherwell.

The Yorkshire Whistler was ready as ever.

26/04/26 The Rangers vs Motherwell

Incident 1

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 18^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Gassama is challenged on the edge of the box

Outcome: Foul to Motherwell

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Gassama goes down on the edge of the box

IOD: Foul and free kick to Rangers

As the ball is played around the edge of the Motherwell box, Gassana and a Motherwell player both look to get to the ball around the same time. It appears to me that Gassana is looking to get his body between the ball and the defender and starts to twist his body in position to do this.

However, by doing so, he actually extends his right leg into the oncoming run of the Motherwell player. In the same motion he also already begins to drop to the floor, making it appear though he has been impeded.

In real time I could see why the referee feels the contact is on Gassana and goes with an attacking free kick. However, upon watching the replay, it is my opinion that Gassana initiates the contact by extending his leg into the path of his opponent whilst moving away from the trajectory of the ball.

In my opinion no foul was committed by the Motherwell player.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision - allowing play to continue or even a defensive free kick would have been the expected outcomes.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A refreshing start to the high-pressure games as the Celtic match passed off without major incident.

Plenty of drama at Easter Road where Hibernian were the recipients of two red cards as Heart of Midlothian’s bountiful variance harvest reaped product once again. Now, Yorkshire Whistler scope remains the Glasgow teams.

The Rangers have been hampered by incorrect calls to the tune of -1.73 expected points, and Celtic -0.04 xPts.

After 34 matches, Celtic leads by one point.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To Week 33

Alan Morrison — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:52:44 GMT

The Yorkshire Whistler brings us up to date to the end of week 33 in the SPFL with the big calls and his verdicts.

This week coverage includes Celtic’s visit to Dundee and The Rangers’ trip to Falkirk.

05/04/26 Dundee vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 9^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Yang scores for Celtic

Outcome: Goal to Celtic

Evidence:

At 0:00

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Yang scores for Celtic

IOD: Goal awarded

Yang reacts quickest to a parry from the Dundee keeper and prods home from close range. There is a question of a possible offside in the buildup, as initially the Celtic player looks slightly in front of his nearest marker as the cross comes in. However, the Dundee right back, almost out of shot is slightly deeper as the ball is played and is correctly adjudged to have therefore played the Celtic player onside.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 57^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Ball hits Donovan in the box

Outcome: Penalty to Dundee

Evidence:

At 2:11

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Donovan in the box

IOD: Penalty to Dundee for a handball offence

As a shot is drilled at goal inside the box, at close range it hits the outstretched arm of Donovan. Whilst I do have sympathy for the Celtic player here, due to it being accidental and he had virtually no reaction time at all from when the shot is hit, his arm is quite extended outwards. The shot appears to be on target from close range and, if not for hitting Donovan’s arm, looks very likely to a goal bound effort. In this context, correct to penalise the accidental handball offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 82^nd

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Iheanacho scores for Celtic

Outcome: Goal to Celtic

Evidence:

At 4:12

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Iheanacho scores for Celtic

IOD: Goal awarded to Celtic

A Celtic cross is swung into the Dundee box from the left flank and there is some mutual contact between Iheanacho and his marker. The Dundee man claims he is pushed in the back, but I’m not so sure. Expected contact between the two players but not a clear push or infringement. The defender needs to show better upper body strength for me. No foul.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 4

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 86^th

Score At Time: 1-2

Incident: Astley challenges Yang

Outcome: Foul to Celtic; RC to Astley

Evidence:

At 4:56

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Astley challenges Yang

IOD: Foul to Celtic and red card to Astley

Yang attempts to latch onto a long through ball and plays the ball forward just before his marker, who only succeeds in pushing the Celtic man over from behind. A clear foul and the referee feel this meets the criteria for denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Dundee claim the left back was covering and so Astley wasn’t the last man but I’m not convinced. Yangs touch looked to have seen him break through centrally whereas the covering player was too wide to have got to the ball first, in my opinion.

A tight call, but one that I would support on balance.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

12/04/26 Falkirk vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 31^st

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Meghoma challenges Miller

Outcome: Foul to Falkirk, YC to Meghoma

Evidence:

At 0:50

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Meghoma fouls Milller

IOD: Foul to Falkirk and Meghoma cautioned

Meghoma gets caught in possession and brings down the opponent that robbed him of the ball. It appears when committing this foul that the Rangers man is ‘the last man’ and so there is the consideration of whether this was a sending off offence.

To clarify being the ‘last man’ is not a sending off offence and it is actually the DOGSO (denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity) that is the punishable offence.

When considering whether a DOGSO has occurred rather than a cautionable SPA (stopping a promising attack) 4 criteria must be considered:

1. Distance to goal - How far from goal did the offence occur?

2. Direction of play - Was the attacker moving toward goal?

3. Likelihood of keeping possession - Could the attacker control the ball?

4. Location and number of defenders - Were other defenders able to recover?

So, in this situation, given the foul occurred well inside Falkirk’s own half and there was also a Rangers defender stood wider and on the half way line, this offence didn’t meet all the required criteria.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to caution for the foul.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 70^th

Score At Time: 2-4

Incident: Tavernier challenges Lissah

Outcome: Penalty to Falkirk

Evidence:

At 3:54

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Tavernier challenges Lissah in the box

IOD: Penalty to Falkirk and Tavernier cautioned

As Lissah breaks into the box, he gets goal side of Tavernier and we see the Rangers man give Lissah a little pull back, enough to impact the attacker’s momentum and a penalty is awarded.

Again, like the previous scenario, as Lissahs next touch sees him taking the ball out wide, rather than goalwards, this is correctly interpreted as a SPA rather than DOGSO and so the player is only cautioned.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

We can only hope that the remaining five crucial rounds of matches pass off without incident in the refereeing front.

The Rangers have been hampered by incorrect calls to the tune of -1.73 expected points, and Celtic -0.04 xPts.

After 33 matches, The Rangers lead Celtic by two points.

As a final aside, this is the sort of pattern I expected to see when I started this five years ago - i.e. small margins impacting either side.

I did not expect to see the statistically significant gaps in outcome and impact we experienced under Crawford Allan’s management.

This might be why the calls in certain quarters for change are so vociferous and coordinated. Standards remain poor under Willie Collum, but at least seem to impact all teams broadly equally. It is that latter point which exercises some, rather than the overall standards, I suspect.

The Hunt for Willie Collum

Alan Morrison — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 18:00:12 GMT

During game week 31 there were few incidents of note in matches involving the Glasgow sides, but for completeness I will include here.

After which, so you do not feel short changed, some musings on the current state of play regarding refereeing.

21/03/26 The Rangers vs Aberdeen

Incident 1

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 88^th

Score At Time: 3-1

Incident: Miovski scored for TRFC

Outcome: Goal disallowed by VAR for handball in build up

Evidence:

At 3:57

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Miovski scores for Rangers

IOD: Goal disallowed by VAR for handball offence in the build up

As Aberdeen clear the ball it appears to hit Miovski accidental on hand and this contact then sees Rangers launch an attack that ultimately results in a goal.

The referee is totally unsighted to this contact as he has already spun his body around to avoid the ball hitting him from the Aberdeen clearance, so this is very much a case of VAR deciding if a handball offence has been committed.

It’s my opinion that this goal should not have been disallowed. The handball is clearly accidental, and I don’t believe the arm is unnaturally extended in way that should be penalised. After this accidental handball is initiated, the passage play goes on for another 18-20 secs approximately and another 5 Rangers players play the ball before it ends up in the goal. This is not an immediate goal directly scored after the accidental handball, which would have been grounds to disallow in that scenario.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. I don’t feel the accidental handball was a punishable offence in this passage of play.

Expected Points Outcome: TRFC -0.05 xPts

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

The Ranges have been hampered by incorrect calls to the tune of -1.73 expected points, and Celtic -0.04 xPts.

After 31 matches, The Rangers lead Celtic by two points.

The Allan to Collum Transition

A temperature check on the overall state of play as regards the Yorkshire Whistler’s analysis and the outcomes arising.

The above summary position, with The Rangers -1.77 expected points worse off due to bad calls, is within what I would consider a reasonable margin of error. That is, we expect bad calls even in the age of VAR, and we hope that the impact of those bad calls is felt equally across all teams in the league.

Such an error differential equates to 0.06 expected points per game. Who remembers the 2009/10 season? Most weeks there were terrible decision that went one way as civic Scotland desperately tried to save Rangers from administration and then liquidation.

In the respect that the Patterns of Assistance (multiple points of evidence, every one statistically significant, illustrating that the Crawford Allan led refereeing fraternity favoured one team in Scotland) appears to be in abeyance. The Yorkshire Whistler analysis is only one small part of that.

The YW has been engaged since Allan’s second year in charge of refereeing. At worst, in 2022/23, the expected points impact of wrong calls was around six points – significant in what have been tight title races up to a point. Under Allan, Celtic always hampered, The Rangers relatively jeopardy free (the main manifestation of Allan’s Honest Mistake era).

Under Collum, the gaps are much tighter as you would hope. I’ll revisit all the metrics during the summer.

What is also noteworthy is the overall picture of decisions referred, and the degree to which the YW has ruled them errors.

The error rate was going down under Allan it is only fair to point out. VAR came in part way through his stewardship. But the error percentage rate has stabilised under Collum to 13%, which is much greater than the referees would claim, but much lower than under Allan. And the volume of errors is down on the back of fewer referrals.

None of which is to claim Collum has massively improved the overall standards. I suspect the single factor of attribution driving down errors is the use of VAR and the gradual improvement in its implementation. Which is difficult for us all to acknowledge in real-time, and impossible if your team is ever on the receiving end of a bad one, as all teams are.

Hence the need to track over the long term.

We now seem to be in a period where intrinsically the referees are still of a poor standard. This is an objective fact based on the lack of appointments for Scottish referees in the latter stages of European club competition, and at major UEFA and FIFA tournaments.

The referees are still parttime in a fulltime sport.

They continue to be disproportionately recruited from the west of Scotland. Of the 16 topflight whistlers, there are six from Glasgow, four from Renfrewshire, two from Edinburgh, and one each from Aberdeenshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Stirlingshire. Five of the 12 refereeing associations have no representatives in the topflight.

So, they are part timers, poorly equipped relative to European peers, and too narrowly selected from the population in Scotland, with too much emphasis on the west of Scotland.

BUT at least the relative incompetence is being dolled out broadly equally across the league!

The Hunt for Willie Collum

Collum has transformed how the Scottish referees interact with the public.

We now have a regular Youtube show, hosted by Sky TV and Gordon Duncan, where Collum goes through the major calls, and explains what went well and not well, including, crucially, the dialogue that occurs between the refereeing team.

This makes tremendously entertaining viewing but also a rod for their backs. It is easy to rail against similar mistakes (usually different referees and always slightly different contexts) and to bemoan airing dirty laundry in public. But consider the impact this has on the referees. No one in that community wants to be the inadvertent star in Wille’s next episode. The refs know each word and action is under intense scrutiny which, whilst adding to the pressure of a difficult job, should serve to, as the ol’ phrase goes, keep them honest.

The VAR/Youtube era has claimed it’s first victim in Alan Muir, he of “Face! Face!” fame as Josh Meeking’s punched the ball off the goal line at Hampden Park in a Scottish Cup Semi Final. Muir overstepped the line in terms of dubiety when disallowing a goal for Celtic at Hibernian despite no evidence being available the ball was out of play.

And whilst John Beaton seems to be able to re-referee games with impunity, the proof, as the YW has shown, is that in the main, whilst errors are still made, they tend to land randomly.

He has also allowed the independent panel of football “experts” verdicts on VAR decisions (the Key Match Incident Panel) be published in another step forward for transparency.

The initiatives should be applauded as brave and in the spirit of accountability, albeit outside of Muir, no one seems to particularly suffer for bad errors.

However, for certain constituencies, this is insufficient, and indeed to be weaponised and taken in bad faith as a stick to beat Collum in particular.

So, it is emerging that a “Sack Collum” narrative is growing amongst certain commentators.

Weird football “personality” Ewen Cameron is to the forefront on this. Here he openly calls for Collum “to go”.

The Heart of Midlothian baseball cap and tracky wearing media presence’s timeline is, to say the least, predictable. Every Monday in support of a STV football show he is on; he posts clips from the conversation to support the show. Those clips, and I only went back to the start of February 2026 before boredom set in, fall universally into two camps:

1. “Rangers wuz robbed”

2. “Celtic got away with one”

And they virtually all are concerned with refereeing calls. Barely a mention of his beloved Hearts.

Here is Derek Clark, a journalist with the mainstream The Rangers Review, railing against Collum in print. Clark can be relied upon to criticise referees in particular and Collum specifically in his content. Notice the wording “what a clown show the officiating HAS BECOME under Willie Collum” (my emphasis).

The clear implication is that it was not a clown show before. Perhaps Clark would rather like a return to the days under Allan, where his favourite team were on the “right” end of most of the calls?

Perhaps most distasteful is this, hosted by SM Media. We’ve had Scott on our show. He’s a good guy, and a fan of The Rangers. His SM Media channel produces lots of good content about Scottish football. He isn’t the issue here.

On this semi regular show, he has Steve Conroy and Des Roache from The Refs View social media account.

This latest episode sees the two former refs behave in a manner I can only describe using the old Scottish phrase “Sweetie Wives”. Imagine the worst excesses of 13-year-old playground bitching and you are nearly there. They have an appalling attitude to their ex-colleagues, even worse than the “we were better in our day” Manchester United Overlap pundits.

Compare and contrast with the professional manner of Collum and Duncan’s VAR Review Show. Whereas one might expect from former referees’ empathy, respect, professionalism, detachment, cool analysis, here you get nasty bitching. Collum is front and centre of their ire.

Roache quit topflight refereeing in January 2015, over 10 years ago. He was never one of the top referees and has no experience of operating VAR in a topflight match, in addition to being 10 years behind on implementing at the sharp end the changes to laws in that time.

Conroy retired in 2012 and was a similarly middle ranking official at his peak and is therefore three years further removed from practical experience.

None of this is to claim that Collum has revolutionised the performances of Scottish referees. Intrinsically, there are limits due to their parttime status. But he has lifted the veil of secrecy, and as such, referees are now openly held to account.

And it does appear he has levelled the playing field. I suspect it is this latter point, rather than any deep-seated grievance about “quality” that has stirred some of the mainstream commentariat.

Open criticism of Collum specifically and personally, and calls for his removal, are becoming common currency in certain quarters.

Good faith debates about how to improve Scottish refereeing remain in short supply amidst the personal attacks. Indeed, I hope The Rangers are supported by other clubs in their call to review how standards can be improved.

Meanwhile, Scottish football can be a squalid little world.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - Match Day 30

However, on the replay it appears that Longelo had no interest in the ball and is purely concerned with grabbing his man and preventing him from getting a clear header away on goal. He does not look at the flight of the ball once.

Maeda is clearly impacted by the holding, he’s look favourite to score from close range so this correctly interpreted as a DOGSO.

As Longelo has made no genuine attempt to play or challenge for the ball itself whilst committing this foul, it is identified as a sending off offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 6

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 74^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Cvancara is challenged

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Cvancara goes down in the box

IOD: No decision

As the Celtic forward looks to break into the 18 yard box, he falls to the floor quite theatrically appealing for a penalty and the referee appears unmoved.

Upon closer inspection I do believe he is tripped by the Motherwell player, but crucially this contact appears to happen outside the box and then Cvancara ensures he lands far inside the box. As this would be deemed a free kick for the foul and not a penalty kick, even if VAR believe a foul was committed it is not within their remit to award free kicks upon review.

Therefore no penalty review is required.

Verdict: CORRECT decision not to award a penalty (although a free kick outside the box would have been the expected outcome)

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

15/03/26 St Mirren vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 11^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Gogic blocks Raskin attempt at goal

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002sydm/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-15032026

At 3:30

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Gogic blocks Raskin header

IOD: No decision

Raskin heads the ball goalwards from a corner and the ball hits the lower left arm of Gogic.

The handball contact is clearly accidental and Gogic’s arm appears to be quite low down and in a natural position as he jumps to make the block. No foul here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A mad 10 minutes at Celtic Park, but one way or another referee Beaton and the VAR team seemed to have separated fact from fiction satisfactorily as far as our neutral expert is concerned.

What is more interesting is, as often the case, the selectivity of which incidents are microscopically scrutinised in certain quarters of the press and the non-press (commentators and “influencers”). Not unexpected, I suppose.

So, no change, and after 30 matches, The Rangers have been hampered by 1.64 expected points.

Celtic lead their rivals by one point after 30 games.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To Week 29

Alan Morrison — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 19:01:34 GMT

The latest review of the big calls for the large Glasgow sides covers Celtic’s matches at home to Hibernian, away to The Rangers and away at Aberdeen. For the Ibrox side it also includes the tie at Livingston.

21/02/26 Celtic vs Hibernian

Incident 1

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 14^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Ball hits Iredale in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Iredale in the box

IOD: No decision

A high ball is played into the Hibs box and Iredale is stood close behind his man. At the last second the Celtic player opens his body up and this allows the ball to strike the defender as he is adjusting his body position.

Although there is accidental handball contact, Iredale is in the process of pulling his arm back into his body.

His body movement appears natural and expected and no offence is committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 22^nd

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Cvancara and Bushiri challenge in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Cvancara and Bushiri challenge in the box

IOD: No decision

The Celtic player has the ball into his body and the defender is very touch tight. There is mutual grabbing contact here and as all good strikers do - they lean and push into their man to shield the ball.

This contest sees both players off balance and fall to the floor. Even though you can say that the Hibs player doesn’t make contact with the ball, I feel there is not enough to see a penalty kick awarded. Both players are off balance and leaning backwards as they fall together.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 72^nd

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Trusty and McGrath grabble at a corner

Outcome: Red Card to Trusty

Evidence:

At 3:04

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Trusty and Mcgrath grapple at corner

IOD: Foul against Celtic and Trusty sent off after VAR review

McGrath and Trusty are getting handsy with each other just before a corner is swung into the box. McGrath right had is grabbing Trusty’s left arm and in attempt to break free of his grip, Trusty appears to strike down onto McGrath with his free right arm. VAR believe this striking motion is of sufficient aggression to constitute an act of violent conduct and the on field ref agrees.

My opinions is that they made the wrong decision and had focused on the striking action rather than the actual contact or impact. He is trying to break free of the close marking attentions of McGrath and is probably a bit frustrated and swings his arm downwards to break free.

At most this is a yellow card worthy ‘adopting an aggressive attitude’ but not enough intent or malice for me to see it as violent conduct.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision - Caution the expected outcome

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic -0.31 xPts

Incident 4

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 74^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Scales challenges for a corner

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

At 4:03

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Scales challenges for a corner

IOD: No decision

Scales goes to ground whilst under the attention of his marker. We see the usual set piece grappling and competing for space involving several players from both teams.

For me any contact between Scales and the other defender is minimal, not sustained and certainly not significant enough to make him drop to the floor, appealing for a penalty the way he does. No foul for me.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

21/02/26 Livingston vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Ryan Lee

Game Minute: 60^th

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Montano challenges Gassama

Outcome: Foul to TRFC; RC to Montano

Evidence:

At 2:13

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Montano challenges Gassama

IOD: Foul to Rangers and Montano sent off

After a pass is played behind the Livingston back line, Montano is caught flat footed by the Gassama, who appears odds on to get through one on one. Montano makes a desperate lunge just outside the box and makes no contact with the ball but does catch the Rangers player. This is correctly interpreted as a foul outside the box and, as it is a denial of obvious goal scoring opportunity, the offending player is rightly sent off.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Ryan Lee

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 2-2

Incident: Kerr challenges Moore

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

At 4:22

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Kerr challenges Moore

IOD: No decision

As Moore appears to be through on goal, Kerr makes a last ditch and genuine slide challenge. In full speed it is difficult to be sure if he plays the ball or man first. Upon replay it shows that Kerr does not make contact with the ball but rather he catches the left hand side of Moores leg and it is then the Rangers player leg that knocks into the ball as he crashes to the ground.

I’m surprised VAR did not recommend an on field review here as I feel a penalty kick should have been awarded for the foul.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Penalty kick and yellow card the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: The Rangers -1.23 xPts

01/03/26 The Rangers vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 88^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Sterling blocks Maeda’s header

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic for handball following VAR referral

Evidence:

At 4:40

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Sterling blocks Maeda header

IOD: Handball and penalty to Celtic after VAR review

As a cross comes over Maeda looks to head home from close range only for his goalbound header hit the out stretched arm of Sterling before then deflecting onto the keeper then away.

Sterling has to jump to make the challenge and from that proximity his arms need to be out somewhere. Although his arms are in a natural position they are outwards and if the ball doesn’t hit his arm, then it looks like being a goal.

On this basis, although I have some sympathy for the Rangers player, this is correctly identified as accidental handball that denies a goal scoring opportunity and so the penalty call, I feel is correct. As this is accidental, a red card is not expected in this scenario and the penalty award is deemed enough of a sanction. If it was deliberate, it would have also been a sending off for the DOGSO.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

04/03/26 Aberdeen vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 18^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Scales challenges Olusanya

Outcome: Penalty to Aberdeen

Evidence:

At 0:37

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Scales and Olusanya challenge in the box

IOD: Penalty to Aberdeen

As the ball bobbles around on the Celtic box Scales and Olusanya both go to kick the ball at the same time with the Aberdeen with his back to the defender. He drops to the ground claiming Scales kicked him rather than the ball.

In real time Scales doesn’t look to have done much wrong here. However, upon replay it appears that Scales catches the back of Olusanyas knee as the Aberdeen players leg makes contact with the ball. I can see why the penalty was awarded in this instance.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 41^st

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Olusanya and Tierney challenge

Outcome: Foul to Celtic; YC to Olusanya

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Olusanya and Tierney challenge

IOD: Free kick to Celtic and caution to Olusanya

The Aberdeen man has possession of the ball as he looks to break into the Celtic box, closely marked by Tierney. We appear to see him stretch his right leg out in an effort to block off the attentions of Tierney and protect the ball, but this motion actually results in him standing down on the foot of the Celtic player.

I believe this is accidental and there is no intent to injure Tierney in my opinion, as his eyes are firmly fixed on retaining possession of the ball. This action is correctly adjudged to be a reckless challenge and nothing more, punishable as a yellow card offence.

Verdict : CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 45^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Milne blocks cross into the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

At 2:15

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Milne blocks cross into the box

IOD: No decision

A cross of the left accidentally hits the arm of Milne. This is at close proximity and the arms are not unnaturally extended in any way. Comfortable with this being seen by the ref as accidental handball and no foul expected.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

The teams were caught up with the back log after these fixtures.

The Derby itself was relatively quiet from a major call perspective, with the late penalty to Celtic deemed correct.

In the post Crawford Allan world, it is rare for two errors to be called out in the same edition of this newsletter.

Both could be impactful in the long run.

The failure of VAR to highlight The Rangers potential late penalty at Livingston could have denied an addition two points to the visitors in a tight title race.

And the sending off of Auston Trusty at home to Hibernian, on the back of the erroneous decision to send him off at Heart of Midlothian has been highly damaging to Celtic. A win became a draw at Tynecastle, and a draw became a defeat at home to Hibernian. A three-point swing.

Additionally, Trusty was then suspended for three matches at a time Celtic’s squad is injury stricken.

Continual poor decisions, which at least impact all sides more or less equally, continues to be the theme under Willie Collum. The lesser of two evils for most.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.64 expected points thus far although both are in “negative” territory now.

Celtic led The Rangers by one point after 29 matches.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To 15th February, 2026

Alan Morrison — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 12:04:03 GMT

This piece takes us up to end of play on the 15^th February 2026 as regards the big call reviews.

11/02/26 Celtic vs Livingston

Incident 1

Referee: Calum Scott

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Ball hits Hatate in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002rd53/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-11022026

At 31:11

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Hatate in the box

IOD: No decision

In the last minute of the game, a ball is played into the Celtic box and Hatate turns his back to the ball as it bounces up off the grass. It does accidentally touch his arm as he spins, but the Celtic’s man had no idea where the ball is moving and his arm is not unnaturally extended in any way.

No handball offence is committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

11/02/26 Motherwell vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 43^rd

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Souttar blocks a shot

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002rd53/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-11022026

At 7:24

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Souttar blocks a shot in the box

IOD: Free kick to Rangers

Bit of a scramble here as Souttar throws himself at the ball to block a shot. This a legitimate block and even though there is secondary ball to arm contact, this is as a result of the ricochet from the tackle and his arm is in a natural position.

Straight after this, a free kick is awarded against Motherwell as there appears to be a player pushing down on Souttar and preventing him from getting back to his feet. A safe, defensive free kick given the amount of bodies competing, if slightly soft.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 75^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Fadinger challenges Moore

Outcome: Foul to TRFC and RC to Fadinger after VAR review

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002rd53/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-11022026

At 10:15

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Fadinger challenges Moore

IOD: Free kick to Rangers and initially a yellow card, upgraded to a red card after VAR review

Fadinger slides in from distance and catches the trailing leg. At full speed this appears to be a reckless challenge, worthy of a caution.

However VAR correctly recommend an onfield review as upon replay, you see the outstretched leg of Fadinger plant his studs into the top of the rear ankle of Moore. This is potentially a serious injury and once this contact his brought to the ref’s attention, you can understand why it is viewed as serious foul play / endangering players safety.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

15/02/26 Kilmarnock vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Duncan Nicholson

Game Minute: 7^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Lyons goes down in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Lyons goes down in the box

IOD: No decision

Kilmarnock breaks into the penalty area and under the attention of two Celtic players he goes to ground claiming a penalty.

There does not appear to be any real type of challenge attempted by the defenders and I feel Lyon’s holds his legs out, trying to initiate some contact before dropping.

Clearly no foul here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Duncan Nicholson

Game Minute: 85^th

Score At Time: 2-2

Incident: Ball hits Lyons in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Lyon’s in the penalty area

IOD: No decision

Lyon’s in an attempt to pressurise the Celtic player before he can get a shot off, sees the ball accidentally hit his right arm as he is moving towards his man. Arms are slightly extended but appear to be in a natural position in relation to how he is closing down the Celtic player. The ball bounces up in close proximity without almost any reaction time. On this basis, I feel no handball offence occurred here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A quiet week before the madness of the run in is unleashed!

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 0.72 expected points thus far.

The Rangers led Celtic by one points after 27 matches, with Celtic having a game in hand.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - to 4th February, 2026

Alan Morrison — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:01:34 GMT

This piece takes us up to end of play on the 4^th February 2026 as regards the big call reviews.

01/02/26 Celtic vs Falkirk

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 17^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: McCann fouls Yang

Outcome: Foul to Celtic, YC to McCann

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

McCann fouls Yang

IOD: Foul to Celtic, McCann cautioned

McCann slides in late on Yang and this tackle is at the very least reckless in nature and an obvious yellow card. There is the consideration of if this tackle also meets the red card criteria of being a tackle of excessive force and endangering players safety.

Given Yang looks to move out the way, and the contact is more glancing nature and also McCann bends his knee at the last second, it probably just falls below the criteria of a red card.

However, this is a subjective call and, on another day, could have seen a red card produced.

In summary you could argue a case for a card of both colours (the famous orange card kind of challenge!). But not enough evidence to say the yellow card was clearly wrong.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 76^th

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Tounekti scores for Celtic

Outcome: Goal disallowed for Maeda offside

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Tounekti scores for Celtic

IOD: Goal disallowed for Maeda offside

As the ball is played in, Maeda is just in an offside decision as the ball hits his foot before bouncing into the path of Tounekti who scores. On this basis Maeda is clearly influencing play from his involvement so is correctly adjudged to be active in the offside decision so the goal is rightly disallowed.

I’d initially seen the slight push by the defender on Maeda but in isolation that level of upper contact is never going to be enough to warrant a foul decision and falls with ‘acceptable contact’ territory.

Maeda begins his run into the space before the slight push and possibly would have been offside regardless of the gentle helping hand.

The possible foul is a subjective call whereas the subsequent is more a matter of fact - is he stood in an offside position or not.

Ultimately, I feel the right decision was arrived at

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

04/02/26 The Rangers vs Kilmarnock

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 4^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Thompson and Gassama challenge for the ball

Outcome: Foul to TRFC and penalty; RC to Thompson

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r1lt/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-04022026

At 2:34

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Thompson and Gassana challenge in the box

IOD: Penalty to Rangers and Thompson sent off

Gassana gets goal side of Thompson and is a clear goal scoring position only 12 yards out. Thompson impedes him by putting his arm across him and the feet also tangle.

As there is no genuine attempt by Thompson to actually play the ball, this is correctly adjudged a penalty and red card offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 36^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Ball hits Polworth in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r1lt/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-04022026

At 5:27

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Polworth in the box

IOD: No decision

Polworth goes to head the ball away and misjudges the flight of the ball. As such the ball rolls down his arm and is then cleared. As the arm is quite tucked in and appears to be in a natural position as he attempts to play the ball, this accidental handball is not an offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 57^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: John-Jules tries to get onto a through ball under challenge from Tavernier

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002r1lt/sportscene-premiership-highlights-202526-04022026

At 6:43

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

John-Jules goes to ground under challenge of Tavernier

IOD: No decision

As ball is played over the top, both players compete to win the race to the ball. The Rangers defender’s arm comes across his opponent slightly, but this appears to be no more than expected contact. The Kilmarnock striker goes to ground far too easily and I’m confident no foul has been committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A “Digger” special, as The Rangers podcasts’ fan favourite was the only referee under the spotlight today.

The Yorkshire Whistler is on his side for these calls and so credit is due.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 0.72 expected points thus far.

The Rangers lead Celtic by three points after 25 matches, with Celtic having a game in hand.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To January 25th 2026

Incident 4

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 65^th

Score At Time: 1-2

Incident: Milne and Engels clash off the ball

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: No decision

In what appears to be a heated moment of the game, play is stopped with the ball at the feet of Milne. Engels rushes to claim the ball and barges Milne to get the ball, and Milne swings him a right arm to shove Engels back who then drops to the floor.

I believe there is an element of frustration of both players here as Engels charges into his opponent aggressively and the response is equally as aggressive.

I don’t feel there is a deliberate swing of the elbow by Milne here and the arm is not bent at all. I think it is an instinctive reaction to being shoved and do not feel a sending off offence has occurred here. Either a caution a piece here for unsporting behaviour or, as was the case, no action required.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 5

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 74^th

Score At Time: 1-2

Incident: Trusty and Kabore challenge for the ball

Outcome: Foul to Hearts and RC to Trusty

Evidence:

At 2:57

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: Foul to Hearts and Trusty initially cautioned but then upgraded to a red card after VAR review

Trusty impedes Kabore as he looks to break through on goal. The referee feels this is a caution for stopping a promising attack, but VAR feel a review is needed and the red card is ultimately shown.

Proximity to goal, trajectory of run and location of other defenders all need to consider when deciding if a foul is the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. This incident is certainly borderline as Kabore would have gotten a clear run at goal.

However, he would have been running at an angle slightly away from goal following the path of the ball. This coupled with how far out the foul is and the location of the Celtic right back, makes my gut reaction that it wasn’t an obvious DOGSO. I believe the referee should have stuck with his original SPA decision and that a caution was the expected outcome.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Caution for SPA expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic -0.31 xPts

25/01/26 The Rangers vs Dundee

Incident 1

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 46th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Raskin shoots for TRFC

Outcome: Foul to TRFC and penalty

Evidence:

At 1:53

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD : Penalty awarded to Rangers

As Raskin gets his shot off inside the area, the Dundee defender slides in late and recklessly catches Raskin with the follow through. For me, a clear foul & penalty kick.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

The top of table clash at Tynecastle provided plenty of controversial moments, and not for the first time, John Beaton on VAR decides to re referee the game from the VAR room. The last time ultimately led to the end of Crawford Allan’s Patterns of Assistance reign.

Otherwise, the referees continue to work to an improved success rate.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 0.72 expected points thus far.

The Rangers led Celtic by two points after 23 matches.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To 21st January, 2026

Alan Morrison — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:25:38 GMT

This review of the big calls takes us up to date ahead of the 23^rd round of fixtures.

30/12/25 The Rangers vs St Mirren

Incident 1

Referee: Ryan Lee

Game Minute: 73^rd

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Fernandez blocks cross into the box

Outcome: Penalty to St Mirren for hand ball

Evidence: Rangers 2-1 St. Mirren | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 3:30

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Fernandez blocks a cross into the box

IOD: Penalty to St Mirren for handball

As the ball is fired in, Fernandez turns his body away and slightly extends his right arm. The ball appears to be on target until it accidentally strikes his right hand. For me this is a very marginal call. Although his arm is slightly extended it is quite low down and his arms have to be somewhere.

In real time the referee understandably doesn’t see the ball on hand contact. I don’t believe this was a clear and obvious error at the time and would have been satisfied if VAR had not gotten involved. But once they spot the had slightly extended, it is difficult to say this was an incorrect intervention.

Overall a harsh decision, but not wrong.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

03/01/26 Celtic vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Steven McLean

Game Minute: 4^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Engels challenges Fernandez

Outcome: free kick to TRFC

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Engels challenges Fernandez

IOD: Foul to Rangers

As both players jostle for possession for the ball, there appears to be mutual grappling and shirt holding by both players, given it is the Rangers player who is shielding the ball, I can see why the foul goes to Rangers.

However this mutual shirt pulling also knocks both players off balance and as a result, Fernandez right arm swings slightly backwards and his elbow catches Engels in the face.

I don’t believe there was any significant contact or intent to swing an arm at Engels and so feel the right decision was arrived it.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

10/01/26 Celtic vs Dundee United

Incident 1

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 35^th

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Araujo challenges Ferry

Outcome: Foul to Dundee Utd and YC to Araujo

Evidence:

At 3:00

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Araujo fouls Ferry

IOD: Foul and Araujo cautioned

The Celtic player slides into a challenge and appears to catch the man rather than ball. It is a committed challenge deemed reckless and so a caution is shown.

I don’t feel this challenge endangers the opponent’s safety or shows excessive force and is a genuine bit late slide to block the ball.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

11/01/26 Aberdeen vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 28^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Fernandez scores for TRFC

Outcome: Goal disallowed for foul on Mitov

Evidence:

At 1:50

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Fernandez scores for Rangers

IOD: Goal disallowed for foul on Mitov

Fernandez and the keeper jump for the same ball and Fernandez rises highest and scores with a header. However on replay you see Fernandezs right arm swings into the outset arms of the goalkeeper and this action clearly impedes the goalkeeper well before his head makes contact with the ball. A foul is committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 74^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Gassama goes down in the box under challenge from Shinnie

Outcome: Penalty to TRFC

Evidence:

At 4:49

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Gassama goes down in the box

IOD: Penalty awarded to Rangers

Gassama cuts inside his man from out wide and draws the challenge from a defender. The outstretched and straight leg of defender makes the slightest of glances against Gassama’s shin and he theatrically throws himself to the floor.

I’m not convinced there is any actual contact and if there is, it is the slightest of touches and certainly in no way would make Gassama throw both his legs out here. In my opinion he has made his mind up that he is going to ground before the attempted block is made. Not all contact is a foul and I’m disappointed the referee has not seen this and gone with a penalty when I don’t believe this should have been adjudged as a foul.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: TRFC +0.46 xPts.

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A relatively controversy free Glasgow Derby in amongst that lot, and we enter the downslope of the season.

One error of note in what has been a season of improving standards, and it is column favourite David Dickinson. You can search for him on the site.

Listening to a TRFC fan podcast this week (I listen to many non-Celtic podcasts), I found out that the Ibrox fans have a nickname for him – he’s known as “Digger”. Digger Dickinson. Cute! He has an affectionate nickname. When will Scottish football modernise? Where there is doubt there is space for people to think the worst.

Meaning a net benefit to Celtic of big calls of 1.03 expected points. After game day 22, Celtic and The Rangers are on the same points.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - to 27th December, 2025

Alan Morrison — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 14:24:50 GMT

This review of the big calls takes us up to the fixtures completed on 27^th December 2025.

21/12/25 Celtic vs Aberdeen

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 45^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Maeda runs though on goal and is challenged by Lobban

Outcome: Foul to Celtic and RC to Lobban

Evidence: Celtic 3-1 Aberdeen | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 2:41

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Challenge on Maeda

IOD: Foul to Celtic and Lobban sent off

The Celtic player reacts quickest to a loose pass from the Aberdeen keeper who is caught out of his area. Lobban clearly pulls back Maeda is who is about to go clear through on goal. Given the Celtic players central proximity and the goalkeepers awkward position out of goal, this is clearly the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity and is correctly deemed to be a red card offence.

Verdict : CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

27/12/25 Livingston vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 36^th

Score At Time: 2-3

Incident: Corner kick hits Findlayson

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic for handball

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Corner kick hits Findlayson

IOD: Penalty awarded to Celtic

In real time, in a congested box, it is difficult to see where the ball hits, but on replay there is the question of a possible accidental handball decision against the Livingston player.

On balance, I feel the wrong outcome is reached here. The defender’s arm is slightly out, but this is likely caused as a combination of his natural body shape jumping for the ball plus there is a nudge in his back from the closest Celtic player and this contributes to his body shape twisting slightly in the air. The contact on the left arm is secondary after it glances off the shoulder of the Celtic player with zero reaction time.

In this context, I don’t believe the threshold was met for a handball offence for accidental handball with body shape unnaturally larger and unjustifiable.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. No offence the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic +0.69 xPts

Incident 2

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 87^th

Score At Time: 2-4

Incident: Maeda goes down chasing a long ball

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maeda goes down chasing a through ball

IOD: No decision

A very sly and deliberate trip on Maeda as he starts to latch on to a through ball. Surprised this wasn’t recommended as an onfield review.

Given the timing of Maedas run and the trajectory of the ball, I believe he would have been clean through with every chance of getting to the ball and have a clear shot on goal unopposed.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Free kick and red card for DOGSO the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic -0.11 xPts

27/12/25 The Rangers vs Motherwell

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 60^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Raskin scores for TRFC

Outcome: Goal disallowed for offside

Evidence: Rangers 1-0 Motherwell | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 2:25

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Raskin scores for Rangers

IOD: Goal disallowed for offside

Even though Raskin is clearly onside as he shoots home from about 12 yards out, his team mate is literally stood side by side with the Motherwell goalkeeper as shot is hit.

There can be no doubt that this player clearly impacts the ability of the keeper to be able to attempt to save the shot and the goal is correctly disallowed for the offside offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Fadinger goes down under challenge from Fernandez

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: Rangers v Motherwell - highlights - BBC iPlayer

At 2:16

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Fadinger goes down in the box

IOD: No decision

Interesting incident here as Fadinger looks to cut inside his man and break into the Rangers box. His marker makes a very slight extension of his left leg in an attempt to block but then looks to draw the leg back in.

The Motherwell player seems to initiate the contact with his left leg before dramatically dropping to the floor. The contact is very minimal and for me is not consistent with the way that Fadinger goes to ground.

Not all contact is deemed to be a foul and in the context of this situation, I feel Fadiger overplays the extent of contact in order to win his side a penalty. I am comfortable with the no foul decision.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

The referees have had a very good run this season, but Matthew McDermid and team were deemed to have got two big calls wrong in the chaos of Livingston against Celtic.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been impacted by 0.91 expected points over the season, and Celtic benefitted by 0.58.

Meaning a net benefit to Celtic of big calls of 1.49 expected points. At 27^th December, Celtic led their rivals by six points after 18 matches.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To 17th December, 2025

Alan Morrison — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:53:40 GMT

Bringing the review of the big calls up to date (18^th December 2025).

03/12/25 Celtic vs Dundee

Incident 1

Referee: Dan Nicholson

Game Minute: 70^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Maeda challenges McCracken

Outcome: Foul to Dundee

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maeda challenges McCracken

IOD: Free kick to Dundee

As the keeper goes to clear the ball from outside his box, Maeda challenges from the side. The keeper steps out and across to shield the ball and goes down. For me, the contact is minimal, and the decision feels a little soft as McCracken initiates the contact.

However, as Maeda doesn’t make contact with the ball at all, you might say this is a ‘safe’ defensive free kick and not clearly wrong.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

03/12/25 Dundee United vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 80^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Ball hits Fernandez in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Dundee United 2-2 Rangers | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership At 3:20

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Fernandez in the box

IOD: No decision

As a throw-in is delivered into the box, the ball bounces up and appears to accidentally catch the Rangers’ man on the lower right arm as he jumps to block the ball. His arm is slightly extended but he is in the process of bringing his arm back into his body as the contact is made with the ball. This motion, coupled with close proximity and limited reaction time, makes me feel that no offence has been committed here.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: David Dickinson

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Moore goes down in the box

Outcome: Penalty to TRFC

Evidence:

@sbk | 18+ | 𝑃𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐺𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑦 ","username":"PremSportsTV","name":"Premier Sports","profile_image_url":"","date":"2025-12-03T21:43:12.000Z","photos":[{"img_url":"https://substackcdn.com/image/upload/w_1028,c_limit,q_auto:best/l_twitter_play_button_rvaygk,w_88/wi9h4pyz41vx9anqs5uw","link_url":"https://t.co/8eqDarmelS"}],"quoted_tweet":{},"reply_count":0,"retweet_count":72,"like_count":673,"impression_count":0,"expanded_url":null,"video_url":"https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1996334373910528000/vid/avc1/480x270/FqSH1B34UWnZF04q.mp4?tag=16","belowTheFold":true}" data-component-name="Twitter2ToDOM">

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Moore goes down in the box

IOD: Penalty to Rangers

A ball is half headed away by a Dundee defender, and Moore, the Ranger striker, just looks to make contact with the Ball before the approaching Dundee defender.

At full speed this looks a routine foul as the left leg of the Dundee player appears to catch Moore on the thigh. However upon watching the slow motion footage, the contact made on Moore appears to be minimal. On balance, I can see why the decision is not overturned, as the Dundee player makes an attempt but makes no contact on the ball. Not an obvious error by the onfield referee but a soft foul nonetheless.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

06/12/25 Kilmarnock vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 49^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Diomande and Watson clash off the ball

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Diomande and Watson clash off the ball

IOD: No decision

As the Kilmarnock player Watson tries to run into the box, Diomande appears to have a tug on his shirt and Watson and drops to the floor.

For me this is a clear and impactful shirt pull and although the pull begins outside the box, in my opinion it continues into the box and should therefore have been adjudged a foul and a penalty kick.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Foul and a penalty kick the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: +0.54 xPts for TRFC

Incident 2

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 77^th

Score At Time: 0-2

Incident: Butland challenges Anderson

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Butland challenges Anderson

IOD: No decision

As the Kilmarnock striker runs through on goal, Butland, the Rangers keeper, comes flying out his box and slides in with his feet. At full speed, he appears to win the ball in a robust challenge.

Upon watching the slow-motion replay, it looks like Butland’s right knee makes contact with the ball, as simultaneously, his left leg catches the striker.

Clearly, this is a committed challenge, and my gut feeling is to give the benefit of the doubt to Butland as the ball is there to be played and he does play the ball and man at the same time.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 85^th

Score At Time: 0-3

Incident: Moore scores for TRFC

Outcome: Free kick to Kilmarnock for a foul in build-up

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Moore scores for Rangers

IOD: Free kick to Kilmarnock

Moore finishes off a move for Rangers, but there appears to be a foul in the buildup involving Fernandez. As the Rangers man plays the ball to his team mate, the Kilmarnock player runs in front of Fernandez, and there appears to be a minor accidental clash of feet. The Rangers player makes no attempt at all to impede the Kilmarnock player, who for me runs in front of Fernandez, and as such, I don’t believe a foul is committed in the buildup.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. The goal should have stood.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact due to time and game state

07/12/25 Celtic vs Heart of Midlothian

Incident 1

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 1-2

Incident: Maeda clashes with McCart

Outcome: No decision

Evidence:

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maeda clashes with McCart

IOD: No decision

A Hearts player clears the ball as Maeda arrives to make a challenge. The Celtic man does appear to slightly kick out at his opponent, but this is in more of a petulant manner as opposed to an act of violent conduct. There is no real force or intent behind this action and at worst this should’ve been penalised with a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to award the foul. Sanction should have been a caution.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

After a good run, a couple of errors this week. Note that the disallowed Mikey Moore goal at Kilmarnock does not generate any expected points impact, as at 3-0 in the 85^th minute, another goal for the away side does not change to projected outcome.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 0.91 expected points thus far.

Celtic leads The Rangers by three points after 16 games.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To 30th November, 2025

Alan Morrison — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:02:20 GMT

The games are coming thick and fast.

Here, the Yorkshire Whistler assesses the big calls from matches up to 30^th November.

22/11/25 St Mirren vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 69^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Scales puts the ball into his own net

Outcome: Goal disallowed for offside

Evidence: St. Mirren 0-1 Celtic | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 1:51

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Scales puts ball in own net

IOD: Goal disallowed for offside

Goalkeeper hits a long ball into the box and Scales attempts to clear ball under pressure for two players, one off whom is stood offside as the ball is flicked on.

In Scales defence, he sees the St Mirren attacker in his line of sight. He is in close enough proximity to influence Scales attempt to stretch and play the ball. This movement towards the ball from the attacker means he is active, has made an obvious action on the ball and this is correctly adjudged as offside.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Kevin Clancy

Game Minute: 76^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Maeda is brought down by Gogic

Outcome: Free kick to Celtic, YC to Gogic

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maeda brought down by Gigic

IOD: Free kick to Celtic and caution for Gogic

Maeda looks to be the favourite to latch onto a though ball and Gogic caught on wrong side of his man appears to drag the Celtic down and a clear foul is committed.

Two considerations here. Was it a penalty instead of a free kick and should it have been a sending off for a DOGSO offence.

In terms of where offence is committed, the contact is initiated outside the box and the players land inside the penalty area. It is a close call but I feel the contact stops just before the players start to fall down in the area and so support the call of a free kick rather than a penalty.

In terms of the sanction for the foul, this is very close to meeting the threshold for a sending off offence for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity given the proximity to the goal.

The one thing that helps Gogic avoid the sending off is that the trajectory of the ball is sending Maeda wide and slightly away from goal, so his next touch was unlikely to be a shot at goal. Hence it is correctly interpreted as simply stopping a promising attack rather than a DOGSO.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

22/11/25 The Rangers vs Livingston

Incident 1

Referee: Ross Hardie

Game Minute: 18^th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Yengi scores for Livingston

Outcome: Goal to Livingston

Evidence: Rangers 2-1 Livingston | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 1:16

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Yengi scores for Livingston

IOD: Goal to Livingston

Yengi latches onto a long ball from counter attack and scores. As the ball is placed over there is a question of being offside, but from the footage provided it appears the player is just onside.

Also at the start of the passage of play the Rangers wide man goes down under a challenge looking for a foul which in my opinion looks a fair challenge.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Ross Hardie

Game Minute: 69^th

Score At Time: 1-2

Incident: Yang and Bushiri challenge for a high ball in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Yang and Bushiri go for a header in the box

IOD: No decision

Brave play by both players here as they don’t hesitate to put their head in where it hurts. The ball bounces in the Hibs penalty area and both players feel they can win the ball. There is a clear clash of heads here but given they both appear to make contact with the ball at the same time (maybe Yang gets there fractionally quicker) I don’t believe this should have been adjudged a foul against Hibs. A fair but painful challenge by both players.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Whether you like it or not, and many won’t, as the years roll on, I am becoming familiar with some of his consistencies in some of these scenarios. Which is all we ask for.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points thus far.

Celtic leads The Rangers by seven points after 13 games.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - Week 11

Alan Morrison — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 07:30:08 GMT

With Willie Collum showing leadership and resisting the baying of the angry mob (disgracefully media-driven) perhaps we have the direction, if not the raw materials, to improve refereeing.

This batch of considerations from the Yorkshire Whistler brings us up to date with matches completed on 9^th November 2025.

09/11/25 Dundee vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Matthew McDermid

Game Minute: 44^th

Score At Time: 0-2

Incident: Moore scores for TRFC

Outcome: Goal disallowed for offside

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: Dundee v Rangers - highlights - BBC iPlayer

At 1:02

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: Goal disallowed for offside

Even though Moore eventually scores, there is an offside consideration just prior to the goal. As the initial shot is parried by the Dundee keeper, Diomande is standing directly in front of the keeper and is in an offside position. He opens his legs and allows the shot through his legs whilst the keeper is unsighted.

Current guidance under Law 11 states it is an offence if a player standing offside ‘makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball’

This is the situation here due to the impact on the keeper and his ability to make the first save.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

09/11/25 Celtic vs Kilmarnock

Incident 1

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 79^th

Score At Time: 2-0

Incident: Ralston goes down in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: No decision

Ralston bursts into the box and the nearest Livingston defender moves across and looks to challenge with his right foot. Upon the replay, it appears the defender clips and plays the ball first before any secondary contact is made with Ralston.

Verdict: CORRECT decision .

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

09/11/25 Celtic vs Kilmarnock

Incident 2

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 3-0

Incident: Yang goes down in the box

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: Celtic v Kilmarnock - highlights - BBC iPlayer

At 1:59

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: Penalty awarded to Celtic

Yang drives into the box on Celtic’s left-hand side and gets the better of his man. All the defender can do as he is caught flat-footed, is clearly pull Yang’s lower right arm from behind and knock him off balance. This pull is sustained and continues inside the box, and so is rightly adjudged a foul and penalty kick.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

A good period continues for the officials with a low volume of incidents being referred and a very low error rate.

Bravo.

It may be a bit dull, but we need to capture such periods for completeness!

For now, The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points this far.

Celtic leads The Rangers by five points after 11 games.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26: League Cup Semi Final Special

Even though Ralston is already on a yellow card, the referee is correct not to award a 2nd yellow card as law 12 states:

Caution is expected for handball for stopping a promising attack, EXCEPT where the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence.

The offence fits this criterion.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact.

Incident 6

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 105^th

Score At Time: 2-1

Incident: Moore challenges Hatate

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Hatate challenged by Moore

IOD: No decision

Celtic throw ball into the Rangers penalty area, and Hatate appears to misjudge the flight of the ball as it drops to him. As he twists his body, Moore, also attempting to block the ball, appears to barge into Hatate’s midriff.

In real time it appears that as Hatate isn’t in full control of the ball, the referee feels the contact is not worthy as a foul, as it doesn’t impact where the ball next lands, and hence it is cleared by Tavernier. Hatate also doesn’t really appeal for the foul.

However, on watching the replay, I feel there is enough contact from Moore into Hatate’s body to justify a foul/ penalty kick decision. If the referee was recommended as an infield review and was shown the footage, I suspect he would have awarded the penalty kick.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision. Penalty kick expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: Celtic were 2-1 up with 15 minutes remaining. The expected points impact for Celtic would be -0.46 if this were a league game.

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

As is often the case, it is the post-match reactions and media positions taken that are of more interest than the football.

A neutral, professional referee can support all the decisions except one. This was detrimental to Celtic. Based on the evidence of the last two seasons, I think we can accept that as an honest mistake.

A visitor from another planet would think that there is a conspiracy against The Rangers from the SFA (read that back, right?) and that they were the victims of cheating, as many of their bloggers have posited.

Mainstream fan media has even lamented the lack of an Andrew Dallas, Mike McCurry or Bobby Madden in the current ranks. Good grief. I mean, we may as well give a whistle to John Greig, John Brown, and Barry Ferguson!

The professional media, who, when Celtic are burdened with tough calls, wheel out ex official after ex official to “prove” the decisions correct, who condemn keyboard warriors, and denounce tin foil heed conspiracy nuts, remain a predictable disgrace in Scotland.

As I have posited elsewhere, multiple aspects of The Rangers must be concerning their supporters. Perhaps this is all a useful distraction.

Additionally, we appear to be in a period, post the reign of Crawford Allan when decisions were beyond normal patterns of distribution in favour of one club, where there is parity of outcome across the league.

When you move from patterns of assistance to parity, it can feel like persecution to those used to patronage.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - To Week 10

Alan Morrison — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 12:37:36 GMT

There has been a scarcity of refereeing reviews recently due to the combination of Cup matches, international breaks, but most tellingly the absence of referrable decisions. Maybe Willie Collum is doing something right?

A Scottish League Cup Semi-Final special will be along shortly, but for now, a quick catch-up on league play to bring us up to date.

29/10/25 Celtic vs Falkirk

Incident 1

Referee: Ryan Lee

Game Minute: 29^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Nygren goes down in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: No decision

Nygren breaks through on goal and the keeper slides out to close him down. The keeper appears to make slight contact with the ball as well as catching the Celtic player. The keeper is entitled to block in this manner and I don’t see a clear foul on Nygren in this passage of play.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

29/10/25 Hibernian vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 85^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Chiawa goes down in the box

Outcome: Penalty to Hibernian

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

IOD: Penalty to Hibs

After a Rangers player slips, Chiawa breaks into the box. Barron is caught on the wrong side of his man and stretches with his left leg across the Hibs man. He only succeeds in catching the right foot of Chiawa and a clear foul is committed.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Another quiet few weeks.

As I wrote earlier in the week, the error rate has improved in matches involving Celtic and The Rangers. And, as VAR maturity increases, so less incidents must be referred in the first place. I would take this as a positive in terms of overall standards.

Objectively, Scottish officiating is poor, as UEFA and FIFA assignments indicate.

But we do seem to be in a place where allocation of erroneous calls is, broadly, random. Let’s hope that trend continues, as this is how it should be.

Secondly, I have not included Heart of Midlothian in this analysis. The Gorgie side are clear and deserved leaders in the SPFL. However, they were as much victims of patterns of assistance to The Rangers as any other club in Scotland. This exercise was about surfacing the ingrained partialities of the SFA rather than just measuring who gets the breaks at the top of the table.

The risks in Scotland remain the culture and practices of the SFA, particularly regarding performances involving The Rangers.

Also, we simply lack the comparative data on Heart of Midlothian. Maybe they will be included from next season?

I will continue to review the efficacy of this exercise, and indeed, at some point, the Yorkshire Whistler will say “enough” and that is fair.

For now, The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points this far.

Celtic leads The Rangers by five points after ten games.

Now, about that Cup Special!

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - Week Seven

Alan Morrison — Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:06:57 GMT

Fill your international week with the latest big calls reviewed by the Yorkshire Whistler.

05/10/25 Celtic vs Motherwell

Incident 1

Referee: Callum Scott

Game Minute: 26^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Charles-Cook blocks McGregor shot

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic

Evidence: Celtic 3-2 Motherwell | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 0:26

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Charles-Cook blocks McGregor shot

IOD: Penalty awarded to Celtic for handball

A ball is cleared to edge of area and McGregor hits a first time volley that is charged down by the Motherwell defender. Upon replay it appears that the defender jumps into the air whilst also spinning his body round, which causes his arm to extend outwards which the ball hits.

The body shape is slightly made unnaturally larger as a result of this spinning motion and so I can support why the handball offence is given.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

05/10/25 Celtic vs Motherwell

Incident 2

Referee: Callum Scott

Game Minute: 45^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Maswanhise goes down in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maswanhise goes down in the box

IOD: No decision

The Motherwell forward launches a counter attack and as he enters the box goes past two Celtic players who are on his heels. he goes down. In both real time, and in slow motion it’s difficult to see any contact initiated by the defender and it looks like he loses his balance/trips on his own feet. I can’t see any attempt to make a challenge by the Celtic man and so am confident no offence is committed.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

05/10/25 Celtic vs Motherwell

Incident 3

Referee: Callum Scott

Game Minute: 53^rd

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Maswanhise goes down in the box

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic

Evidence: Celtic 3-2 Motherwell | HIGHLIGHTS | William Hill Premiership

At 3:04

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Maswanhise goes down in the box

IOD: Penalty to Motherwell

As a low cross is played into the box, Masawanhise’s first touch sees him play the ball away from the oncoming challenge from the defender who doesn’t make any contact with the ball. In real time it doesn’t appear that any real contact is made on the attacker who takes another step forward before being off balance and hitting the deck. Indeed, his reaction is almost apologetic and he doesn’t appear to be asking for a foul.

Upon replay, the defenders left foot making minor contact with the attackers right boot and this adjudged to have been worthy of an onfield review.

Due to the contact seen on the replay potentially playing a part in Masawanhise becoming off balance, I cannot say this was categorically a wrong call, but it does appear a soft decision. Certainly without VAR that kind of minimal contact is very unlikely to be identified or penalised in real time.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

If Steven Gerrard returns as manager (or is it Head Coach?) at The Rangers, will he bring Crawford Allan back him?

We should be told.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points this far.

Celtic leads by nine points after seven games.

Honest Mistakes 2025/26 - Week Six

Alan Morrison — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 11:04:11 GMT

A gentle loosener this week.

Thankfully, the Yorkshire Whistler maintains calm, rational detachment.

27/09/25 Celtic vs Hibernian

Incident 1

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 71^st

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Cadden blocks cross into the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Cadden blocks a cross into the box

IOD: No decision

As the Celtic player drills a cross into the box, the defender, at very close proximity, stretches to block the cross. The ball’s trajectory actually goes behind the defender’s body, and it is his trailing right arm that makes accidental contact with the ball.

Given the body shape of the defender making the block appears natural for the block, coupled with the close proximity and limited reaction time, I do not feel this action should have been penalised as a handball offence for making the body shape unnaturally larger.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

28/09/25 Livingston vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 24^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Raskin goes over in the box at a corner

Outcome: Penalty to TRFC

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 29/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 7:07

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Raskin goes over in the box

IOD: Penalty to Rangers

As a cross is swung over, in a congested penalty area, Raskin goes to ground quite theatrically and in real time it is difficult to see why.

However, upon watching the replay, you can see the Livingston defender is pulling at the bottom of his shirt. Once this is brought to the referee’s attention via the on-field monitor, I can understand why a penalty is awarded.

Even though I feel the Rangers man makes a meal of the pull and isn’t as impacted as his reaction suggests, the pulling on the shirt motion is long enough not to be overlooked once spotted by the VAR. A soft decision, but not incorrect.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 43^rd

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Cornelius scores for TRFC

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 29/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 10:18

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Cornelius scores for Rangers

IOD: Goal disallowed for handball

As the ball bounces up it appears to hit Cornelius accidentally before he slots home from close range. The ball strikes the Rangers player just below the T-shirt line on his right arm. I would say the right arm is not in an unnatural position, as it isn’t particularly extended. However, crucial to the decision here is what happens immediately after the accidental handball contact.

The law around handball states that it is classed as a handball offence if the player immediately scores, after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

So in context here, if Cornelius had then played the ball to a team mate who had gone on to score, the goal would have stood, as the goal scorer himself had benefited from the accidental handball and scored, then a handball offence has now occurred.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

It calmed down this week, and Willie’s proteges are back on track.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points this far.

Celtic leads by seven points after six games.

The Humble Foul, Possession Adjustment, Foul Differentials and Room For Doubt

Alan Morrison — Sun, 28 Sep 2025 12:35:22 GMT

90 minutes had elapsed by the time Don Robertson awarded Celtic their one and only foul of the match at home to Hibernian on Saturday.

Opta had the final foul count at 17 awards to Hibernian and one to the home side. A remarkable disparity. The ball was in play 56.84 minutes, and Celtic had what is a typical 75% possession. Meaning Hibernian had possession of the ball for 14.21 minutes. Celtic, therefore, committed 17 fouls in those 14.21 minutes – 1.19 fouls a minute. Even more remarkable, given that most of Hibernians’ possession was spent standing around deciding which of the multiple balls to use.

This differential of 16 fouls is not the most I’ve recorded, by the way. That was an infamous match at Pittodrie in October 2021 when keen betting enthusiast Bobby Madden awarded Aberdeen 27 fouls to 10 for Celtic, eight of them against hatchet man, errr, *checks notes*, Jota.

Kevin Clancy found a 16-foul differential in a match at Ross County in January 2015 – the count that day was 22 to six.

Matthew McDermid awarded one foul against St Johnstone in December 2024 in a 4-0 victory for Celtic at home.

So, these events are not without precedent.

The question is whether this can be considered “normal”.

Celtic fans do right to be suspicious. These pages have established with high degrees of statistical significance that one team was provided special protection against jeopardy during Crawford Allan’s reign of error. Clear patterns of assistance towards The Rangers skewed Scottish football for years.

However, since Allan’s ignoble departure and the promotion of the rather hapless Willie Collum as Head of Refereeing, there have been discernible changes to those patterns. Whilst the underlying culture and attitudes are likely unchanged, the transparency Collum has introduced with the YouTube outings of bad calls and the publication of the Key Match Incidents (KMI) report, has changed behaviours. No referee wants to be defrocked on YouTube.

Overall standards and performance of the part-time officials do not seem to have improved, but under the harsh scrutiny of public data, errors are now more normally distributed across all teams more or less equally. This is a big step forward for fairness, if not the quality of service.

But is the humble foul, never the subject of YouTube forensics nor ever to appear on a KMI report, the last bastion of unconscious bias? Football is a contact sport. Not all contact is a foul, and whether a line has been crossed between acceptable physicality and foul play is hugely subjective. In such grey areas does unconscious bias thrive.

Also, this debate needs to be taken above the level of mere counting. Tallying up fouls for and against and comparing card counts is oversimplistic and avoids some truths about the nature of football that need to be considered in any analysis.

The key question distils to this: Celtic is a possession-dominant team that aggressively deploys pressing and counterpressing strategies when the ball is lost. Is their profile of fouls awarded and conceded consistent with other clubs with similar styles in leagues, unlike Scotland, where every effort is made to remove doubt and unconscious bias from officiating?

Is Pressing and Fouling Linked?

Teams that press and counterpress aggressively (Liverpool under Jurgen Klopp, Leeds United under Marcelo Bielsa, early Thomas Tuchel at Chelsea) tend to commit a lot of fouls high up the pitch.

That’s because pressing relies on disrupting build-up quickly; tactical fouling is often used to prevent transitions when the press is broken. Teams that attack often, commit many players to those attacks, and aggressively press are vulnerable to counterattacks due to the space and relative lack of personnel in defensive shape.

Counterpressing in particular raises foul counts because it involves swarming the ball-carrier immediately after losing it.

Teams with 60–65% possession (Manchester City, Barcelona, Paris Saint-Germain) spend less time defending overall, so they naturally have fewer foul opportunities.

On a raw fouls-per-game basis, they often commit fewer fouls than reactive, low-block teams.

If we adjust for the amount of defending a team has to do (per opposition possession or per defensive action), high-possession, high-pressing sides usually foul at a higher rate than passive sides.

For example, Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City might commit ~9–10 fouls per match, but because they allow the opponent very few possessions, their fouls-per-opponent-possession defended is relatively high.

Low-block teams (e.g. Burnley under Sean Dyche) might commit ~11–12 fouls, but spread across far more opposition possessions, so the rate per defensive possession is lower.

Studies using StatsBomb and Opta data have found that:

· Pressing intensity (Passes Per Defensive Action, counterpressing recoveries) correlates positively with possession-adjusted fouling rates.

· Elite pressing teams like Klopp’s Liverpool or Bielsa’s Leeds United often ranked top in “fouls per opposition pass allowed.”

Passive, deep-block teams foul less per defensive opportunity, relying on shape rather than disruption.

So, teams that dominate possession and press aggressively tend to concede more fouls on a possession-adjusted basis (per defensive action opportunity) than low-press, deep-block sides. They commit fewer fouls overall (because they defend less), but when they do defend, they foul more frequently, using tactical fouls to sustain their press and prevent transitions.

I suggest Celtic resembles this profile.

Meaning, we need to allow for the fact that, in common with trends between high and low possession sides and high and low pressing sides, Celtic will foul more frequently on a possession-adjusted basis.

Comparative Study

Long story short, it is a fiddle to collate data across multiple leagues on a consistent basis.

Here are 20 teams from the “top five” leagues from the 2023-24 season that are a sample of “high” and “low” possession teams and their foul rates for and against.

Here is the same data for the SPFL from the 2024-25 season.

We can see a similar distribution from high to low, but Celtic are an outlier in terms of volume of possession, even compared to European behemoths like Manchester City.

Upon this raw data, we then need to sprinkle some analytical fairy dust. Assuming the ball is in play for no more than 60 minutes per game (reasonable for most of the top five leagues but a little high for Scotland), we possession-adjust the fouling rates so that we can see, relative to each team’s possession profile, what the foul count would look like had possession been equal.

This effectively equalises possession as a factor, and we can consider other factors such as pressing and counterpressing strategies.

We can then plot average possession percentage with the difference between fouls awarded and fouls conceded on a possession-adjusted basis.

If we plot it.

Celtic is a clear outlier, as 75% average possession might suggest. But also, in the possession-adjusted negative difference between fouls awarded and conceded.

This further illustrates that possession-dominant sides who press aggressively will concede more fouls on a possession-adjusted basis, and the clustering of the top European heavyweights confirms. The Rangers profile based on 63% possession is also consistent with this.

Sides with low possession concede fewer fouls when their defensive strategies are to sit deeper and press less aggressively.

There are two clear populations on that basis.

A couple of other observations.

One is that there is a concentration of Scottish clubs who appear to be most leniently treated – i.e. have a heavier positive profile of fouls awarded versus conceded. Those sides, in 2024-25, could also be characterised as the more physical in the division. I think this supports the notion James and I have raised many times on the podcast that, in general, referees in Scotland are more lenient when it comes to robust physical challenges.

Meanwhile, Celtic and The Rangers are penalised for perhaps more tactical, less robust challenges that stop opposition transitions in line with the trend amongst European playing-style peers.

However, even allowing for Celtic’s outlier possession average of 75% (the next highest in the sample is 67%), can the differential in fouls be solely explained by playing style?

Remember the dominant outworking of patterns of assistance: it wasn’t that The Rangers were constantly being rewarded with penalty after penalty or opposition sending offs for nothing. Yes, it seemed that on a relative basis. But patterns of assistance under Crawford Allan were characterised by the ABSENCE of jeopardy for The Rangers. It was penalties not awarded and sendings off not given that was the prevailing trend. It is much harder to critique something that didn’t happen than something that did. There is always the “seen them given” and “gave the referee a decision to make” defences, allowing plenty of scope for fence-sitting.

What characterises Celtic’s foul profile is, like on Saturday, the relative absence of fouls awarded against the opposition. Celtic gets 6.31 fouls in their favour a game on a possession-adjusted basis – the next highest in 2024-25 was 8.65 for The Rangers. The league average was 11.81.

Nearly all our analytical discussions come down to a judgment on attribution.

How much of Celtic’s outlier profile as regards fouls awarded versus conceded comes down to style of play? In this data set, there is a 0.91 correlation between possession and possession-adjusted foul difference – a very strong correlation, in other words. Clearly, this is impacting the foul differential to a significant degree.

Celtic has around 12% more possession than the next highest possession side in this sample (Paris Saint-Germain). Yet, there was an 82% higher foul difference between the sides.

Is the humble foul the last redoubt for Scottish refereeing? There is some room in the data for doubt on this.

And we are back to the point that Scottish refereeing does very little to remove that doubt for ALL fans of ALL clubs.

Honest Mistakes 25/26 - Week Five

IOD: Penalty awarded to Hearts

Milne bursts into the box and Diomande stretches with his right foot across his body to make a block tackle. Milne appears to go down under minimal contact and my initial thought was that no foul had been committed. However on replay, there does appear to be a slight touch on Milnes left foot and as he is running at speed, this could be enough to knock him off balance. If no penalty had been awarded I would not have been surprised, but once the penalty is awarded, it is not a clear error and so I would on balance, support this decision just.

Verdict: CORRECT decision .

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

14/09/25 Kilmarnock vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 5^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Ball hits Stanger in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 14/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 3:20

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Stanger in the box

IOD: No decision

As a cross is made. Stanger goes to close ball down from close distance and the ball appears to hit his left arm accidentally.

For me there is very little reaction time due to the proximity and I don’t feel the arm is extended out unnaturally for that specific situation.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 69^th

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Ball hits Deas in the box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 14/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 10:18

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Ball hits Deas in the box

IOD: No decision

As another Celtic low cross is fired into the box, the ball appears to hit the goalkeeper before deflecting up into the slightly outstretched arm of a defender. Similar to the previous incident, due to the very close proximity from when the balls trajectory changes after the keepers initial save, there is virtually no time to react. Even though the arm is out slightly, again I don’t believe it meets the threshold for extended and unnaturally large specific for that situation.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 89^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Carter-Vickers and Deas challenge for the ball in the Celtic box

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 14/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 15:49

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Carter-Vickers and Deas challenge for the ball inside the Celtic box

IOD: No decision

A bit of the mutual grappling and jostling from two strong defenders at a set piece but I don’t see anything here that constitutes a clear and impactful holding/pulling offence committed.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 4

Referee: John Beaton

Game Minute: 90^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Mayo blocks Forrest shot

Outcome: Penalty to Celtic for handball

Evidence: Sportscene: Premiership Highlights - 2025/26: 14/09/2025 - BBC iPlayer

At 16:34

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Mayo blocks Forrest shot

IOD: Penalty for handball following VAR review

Again, another contentious decision I suspect, after the ball ricochets onto the arm of a Kilmarnock defender. In real time, it seems a harsh decision as it hits the defender after a close-range deflection off his teammate. However, on replay, from the initial shot, the offending player has turned his body to block the first shot and in doing so, extends his left arm out and slightly outwards. Once this is spotted by the VAR team I can see why they have recommended the on-field review. Another of those subjective calls that you could argue for either way, but not a decision that was clearly incorrect,

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Quite the explosion this week, but despite the media howling, credit to John Beaton and team for getting the big calls right at Rugby Park. The handball law is really tricky, and forever adding to its complexity isn’t helping.

I’m sure commenters can add when the last time The Rangers were on the wrong side of two big calls at Ibrox, or indeed anywhere. As has been said repeatedly, refereeing standards are not necessarily improving, but at a minimum, all we expect is for the negative impacts of that to be felt equally across all teams.

The Rangers have been estimated to have been hampered by 1.45 expected points thus far.

Celtic leads by nine points after five games.