Decisions made during recent Hearts and Hibs games have been detailed by the refereeing chief.
Willie Collum, the head referee, has revealed the results of three VAR rulings made during Hearts vs. Hibs games, including the Edinburgh derby.
Due to some poor calls this season, refereeing performance has been under intense scrutiny from fans, managers, and commentators. Rangers’ missed penalty in the League Cup final caused a national uproar, but it’s hardly the only bad call this season.
Additionally, Dan Casey’s red card for violent behaviour during Motherwell’s draw with Kilmarnock became viral before being revoked. Collum has examined three distinct occurrences as part of the VAR review show, and Hearts and Hibs games have also been affected.
It includes the choice to give Hibs a crucial goal in the Edinburgh derby as well as two contentious penalties.
Hibs versus. Hearts (offside: Rocky Bushiri)
The first goal of David Gray’s team’s 2-1 victory at Tynecastle was cut off after Rocky Bushiri was judged to be offside, and Kye Rowles put it in his own net. This was declared a clear strike and overturned.
We’re talking about the Hibs attacker’s proximity to the Hearts goalie, whether it affects his ability to play the ball or his line of sight, Collum stated. Given how quickly it transpired, you can see why the on-field officials are hesitant. The past few weeks have been devoted to discussing early communication. Early detection of the Hibs player’s whereabouts by the assistant referee will allow the referee to become aware of it and focus on it right away. However, both the referee and the VAR follow a very good procedure when it comes to the monitor.
Since it’s subjective, we must bring the referee to the monitor here. The referee, who is the on-field official, must decide whether he is in the line of sight or obstructing the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball there, even if everyone can see that he is offside. They’ve made the appropriate choice, so he doesn’t just brush it off right away when it comes to the monitor. This is what we want to see on the monitor, so he swiftly switches between viewpoints and asks the VAR to halt so we can make the best choice.
However, when you examine this scenario from the perspective of pause, it is evident that the Hibs attacker is not affecting the Hearts custodian in any manner, thus in the end, this is the right choice. Although the referee must make the final judgement, I want to be very clear that if the goal had been denied in this instance, it would have been incorrect for us. It is crucial that we do this correctly because, when you slow down the shots and examine the angle behind the goal, there is nothing to justify calling an offside.
Hearts vs. Ross County (reversed James Penrice’s penalty)
Michael Efete, the county defender, was found to have committed a foul.James Penrice, left-back for the Jambos, in the box during a 2-2 tie between the two teams. This was overturned following a VAR review, but the Key Match Incident panel determined that a spot-kick should have been awarded instead. Collum is against this position.
“Let’s revisit the League Cup final, where a shirt pull carried into the penalty area,” he remarked. The only infraction for which you can impose punishment at its conclusion is shirt pulling. Therefore, you punish it if it begins outside the box but continues within, yet the first contact occurs during a tackle or an arm offence like this one. The first contact for the foul, or what the referee considers to be a foul, is outside the box, as you can plainly see in the video when it is paused and slowed down.
Therefore, the VAR’s conclusion that this is factually inaccurate is accurate. Why we brought the referee to the monitor, however, is the main topic here, and many people discussed this choice at the time. What brought us to the monitor at that particular moment? There is nearly another instance of contact with the arm, which is why the referee is summoned to the monitor, but it is not punishable in our opinion. It’s critical that the referee get an opportunity to observe that so that he can make a determination.
“The first collision is obviously outside, but when the players enter the box, is there a second movement? We discussed it here because, although there is that additional interaction, it is obviously not punishable in our opinion. However, we must start at the beginning and consider whether this is the first instance of contact if it is an arm offence.
“I return to the KMI panel’s advantages. Every week, we gain knowledge in the KMI panel. The KMI panel did believe it was a penalty, but they also believed there was a tangle of legs when the players entered the penalty area, which is where I disagree with them. Therefore, they were more interested in a lower body foul, even if we don’t believe there is anything punishable there. Similarly, we do not believe that any contact, including secondary contact, in the box or upper body is penalised.
Rangers vs. Hibs (penalty for Josh Campbell)
Ianis Hagi took Josh Campbell down in the box during the thrilling 3-3 draw between Hibs and Rangers. “It’s never a penalty, it’s from both sides a collision and nothing more,” said Philippe Clement, the manager of Ibrox, in response to criticism. “You can give it two ways so you don’t give a penalty in that situation.”
But Collum supports the call. There are many factors to take into account before making this choice, he stated. a range of camera perspectives. The referee is positioned correctly. On the pitch, he makes quick decisions. He provides the VAR with a concise explanation. This is a highly individualised choice. You might explain why this is a punishment if you look at it. Coming in is the upper body contact. At that time, the Hibs player is ahead. Not a single ball is touched by the Rangers player.
If you look at the ground level, did the Hibs player make contact with the Rangers player? Does the contact with the upper body produce that? There are many factors to take into account here. What we say is a matter of opinion. Here, the referee gives a penalty. Nothing can reverse it by bringing the referee to the monitor here. There are more factors to back up the referee’s judgement to play on here. We would therefore state that we would support it regardless of the on-field judgement, which is highly subjective in our opinion.
