Honest Mistakes: Week Six

Unexpected event generates befuddled response shocker!

This week saw Celtic visit managerless St Johnstone whilst Hibernian visited the new shiny (cough) Ibrox.

The impact of incorrect big calls can be evaluated using the framework outlined here -> Honest Mistakes in the SPFL.

28/09/24 St Johnstone vs Celtic

Incident 1

Referee: Don Robertson

Game Minute: 26^th

Score At Time: 0-0

Incident: Maeda scores for Celtic.

Outcome: Goal to Celtic overturned on VAR review to foul to St Johnstone Trusty on Carey.

Evidence: St. Johnstone 0-6 Celtic | Kyogo Furuhashi Double! | William Hill Premiership (youtube.com)

At 0:17

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Initial on-field decision: Goal ruled out after VAR review foul given against Trusty on Carey on build up to goal.

Difficult to spot by the on-field referee due to a contested penalty area but on VAR spot Trusty slightly raise his forearm as he runs into and knocks Carey to the ground. If the Celtic man keeps his arms down and just goes shoulder to shoulder I would have said no foul. But as he raises his left arm as part of his movement into Carey, catching him on the head while doing so, once this is brought to referee's attention, a foul is the expected outcome.

Verdict: CORRECT decision

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

29/09/24 The Rangers vs Hibernian

Incident 1

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 45th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Souttar blocks a header at goal.

Outcome: No decision changed to a penalty to Hibernian by VAR for Souttar handball.

Evidence: Rangers 1-0 Hibernian | Lawrence Scores Stunner to Secure Points! | William Hill Premiership - YouTube

At 1:55

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Initial on-field decision: No foul, but after VAR review, a penalty awarded to Hibs

Souttar throws himself at the ball to block a shot from close range and in doing so the ball hits his arm. In real time it looked like the Rangers player raises his arm to make his body shape unnaturally larger as part of the block.

This is confirmed by the replay, as Souttar raises his right elbow above his head and this is the part of his body that blocks the shot. This makes his body shape larger and is not justifiable and so the handball is the expected outcome.

Again IFAB guidance has been revised for this season for situations involving penalty awards and non-deliberate handball offences. So, defenders are not ‘doubly’ punished for accidental handball offences (ie penalty and the sending off) it now states:

“Caution when defender handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack, EXCEPT where the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence

Caution when the defender denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence”

In Souttars incident, it was a DOGSO penalty non-deliberate offence, so he should have been cautioned but not sent off.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision – YC to Souttar expected.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 45th

Score At Time: 1-0

Incident: Kukharevych penalty saved by Butland.

Outcome: No decision.

Evidence: Rangers 1-0 Hibernian | Lawrence Scores Stunner to Secure Points! | William Hill Premiership - YouTube

At 2:32

https://x.com/KBG1888/status/1840402792503967893

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Initial on-field decision: no decision

From the resulting penalty, Butland makes a good save. However, there are a couple of points of contention here that require further analysis.

Firstly, both a Hibs player and a Rangers player appear to enter the penalty area before the penalty is actually struck and so the shout of ‘encroachment’ is made.

VARs remit does extend to checking for encroachment by other outfield players and goalkeepers during a penalty. However, a crucial update to encroachment guidance for this coming season is:

“Encroachment by players will be penalised only if it has an impact.”

As neither outfield player had any impact on the save made by Butland, under the latest guidance no encroachment should have been penalised.

However, Butland's actions do deserve closer scrutiny.

Latest guidance around potential goalkeeper encroachment at a penalty kick states:

“When the ball is kicked, the defending goalkeeper must have at least part of one foot touching, in line with, or behind, the goal line.”

So technically as long as the heel of the goalkeeper's back foot is in contact with the goal line as the ball is struck, the rest of his body can be well forward and clear of the goal line and no encroachment has happened.

From the freeze-frame footage provided, I believe that Butland’s back foot had just come off the goal line as the ball was struck.

As he saved the resultant penalty and so clearly impacted the outcome, the penalty kick should have been retaken after a VAR review.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision - retaken penalty expected outcome

Expected Points Outcome: The Rangers +0.46 xPts

Summary

My thanks as always to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Let’s see if Collum’s homework marking picks up on the two anomalies at the unexpected Hibernian penalty at Ibrox. It can’t be straightforward, can it!

In terms of the overall position:

Celtic have 0.46 MORE expected points and The Rangers also have 0.46 MORE due to the impact of Honest Mistakes. So, no “advantage” for either team.

Celtic lead by five points after six matches.