Honest Mistakes 2025/26: League Cup Semi Final Special
The Yorkshire Whistler calmly unpicks the fallout from the League Cup semi-final between Celtic and The Rangers. Note: hysteria-free.
The Scottish League Cup Semi-Final between Celtic and The Rangers unleashed a week-long torrent of partial commentary and outrage about refereeing.
There is only one Yorkshire-based, neutral, professional we can turn to in such situations.
02/11/25 Celtic vs The Rangers
Incident 1
Referee: Nick Walsh
Game Minute: 24th
Score At Time: 0-0
Incident: Cornelius challenges Kenny
Outcome: Foul to Celtic and YC to Cornelius
Evidence: Provided
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:
Cornelius tackles Kenny
IOD: Foul to Celtic and Cornelius cautioned
Cornelius slides into a tackle and catches Kenny on the inside of the foot. A yellow card is shown, but there is a question of if this challenge merited something harsher.
On review, the Rangers man’s leg is slightly bent, rather than totally straight which reduces the impact somewhat. The tackle is late but the point of contact is low down. On balance I would say this was correctly adjudged as a reckless challenge and not as a red card challenge that showed excessive force.
Verdict: CORRECT decision
Expected Points Outcome: No impact.
Incident 2
Referee: Nick Walsh
Game Minute: 38th
Score At Time: 1-0
Incident: Aasgaard challenges Ralston
Outcome: Foul to Celtic and RC to Aasgaard
Evidence: Provided
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:
Aasgaard challenges Ralston
IOD: Foul to Celtic and Aasgaard shown red card
In an attempt to play the ball, the Rangers man swings a boot without being aware of how close Ralston is. This sees a foul committed whereby Aasgaard studs make strong contact with the top of Ralstons thigh as he is stood upright. This is clearly an act that endangers player safety and the red card is correctly shown.
Verdict: CORRECT decision
Expected Points Outcome: No impact.
Incident 3
Referee: Nick Walsh
Game Minute: 45th
Score At Time: 1-0
Incident: Trusty challenges Butland
Outcome: Foul to TRFC and YC to Trusty
Evidence: Provided
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:
Trusty challenges Butland
IOD: Foul to Rangers and Trusty cautioned
As Butland looks to drop on the ball, Trusty appears to try and poke his foot at the ball before at the last minute realising he won’t get to ball before the Rangers keeper, so pulls his foot back at the last second. There appears to be a glancing blow at best that grazes Butlands face. I feel he over exaggerates the contact and there is certainly no excessive force on display here by Trusty.
Given there does appears to be minimal contact I can support the assessment by the referee that this is a reckless tackle at worst and so the yellow card is shown.
Verdict: CORRECT decision
Expected Points Outcome: No impact.
Incident 4
Referee: Nick Walsh
Game Minute: 56th
Score At Time: 1-0
Incident: Maeda challenges Diomande
Outcome: Foul to TRFC and YC to Maeda
Evidence: Provided
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:
Maeda challenges Diomande
IOD: Foul to Rangers and Maeda cautioned
The ball bounces in front of Maeda, who goes to play the ball with his right foot but doesn’t see Diomande on his blind side right shoulder, Diomande gets to the ball first Maeda, and the Celtic man makes contact with Diomande’s stomach.
For me, this contact is clearly accidental, and Diomande is not caught with any real force here. I agree with the referee’s assessment of a reckless tackle challenge caution, and that it wasn’t a red card for excessive force / endangering players’ safety kind of incident.
Verdict: CORRECT decision.
Expected Points Outcome: No impact.
Incident 5
Referee: Nick Walsh
Game Minute: 79th
Score At Time: 1-0
Incident: Ralston blocks Gassama shot
Outcome: Penalty to TRFC
Evidence: Provided
Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:
Ralston blocks Gassama
IOD: Penalty awarded to Rangers. No caution for Ralston who was already on a yellow card.
As Gassama breaks through, Ralston desperately throws his body at the ball, and the ball appears to hit his left elbow. Ralston isn’t in control of his body, and his arm is tucked in. However, he appears to make a twisting motion which rolls his arm unnaturally forward towards the ball, and for me, this is why the penalty kick is confirmed as a handball offence.
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: 105th
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.
While accepting my unconscious biased view I do not think the whistlers description of any of the incidents is actually correct in its detail. I believe he in fact, is unconsciously biased toward supporting the referee and only after slow motion interpretations. Perhaps my bias is less unconscious than I thought. lol
I like that we are now discussing 50/50 interpretations rather than the days of old when we got offside calls , when yards onside. Or when a touching of heads resulted in rangers players throwing themselves to the floor. I think bar the sending off, the rest were 50/50.