Tiddy

Southampton captain Taylor Harwood-Bellis appeared to mock a Middlesbrough player with a binoculars celebration amid allegations that Saints were spying on Boro training before their play-off clash 😬

🤓 Reflections on last night's Celtic penalty. I'm not trying to convince anyone, really, more laying out an alternative viewpoint amongst what I consider to be pretty absurd hysteria. There are also some mistruths about the VAR process being portrayed as neutral objectivity that I think deserve to be challenged. Does the ball hit his arm? For me, the footage shows this. Is his arm in an unnatural position and making his body bigger? It's above shoulder height and in front of his head. The ball strikes his arm before his head. Personally, I don't feel his arm being there is justified by his body movement. Intent is irrelevant. Is it a clear and obvious error? There's a popular misconception there has to have been a 'clear and obvious error' for VAR to recommend a VAR review. Per the IFAB guidance, this is not true. A referee can also be called to the monitor if they communicate to the VAR that they haven't seen or made a decision on an incident VAR has flagged as a potential penalty. This is called a 'serious missed incident'. I think, until the audio is released, it's reasonable to assume John Beaton did not rule on whether it was a handball or not before the review, so 'clear and obvious error' would not apply. He didn't have to make a decision on allowing play to continue because the ball almost immediately went out of play and he was told to delay. It's fair to surmise that Dallas' only role was flagging to Beaton there was a potential handball, not suggesting he had made a grave error. IFAB guidance also makes clear that for subjective decisions, including handball considerations, a pitchside review is appropriate. Beaton approached the monitor and made a decision on the evidence available to him. Taking all of this into consideration, even if you feel it wasn't a penalty, I am struggling to comprehend the outrage as if this were either the most corrupt decision in the history of Scottish football or the 'worst VAR decision' in history. I feel there's been a lack of balance or relevant knowledge on broadcasts. I think mainstream pundits suggesting there is a pattern of assistance for Celtic in this title race is hysterical nonsense that is ordinarily mocked by most in less tense times. For the record, and I know this goes against many Celtic fans, I don't believe any club feels the benefit of biased refereeing. I think referees in this country are generally poor and lack consistency and I think the version of VAR that we have in Scottish football is fundamentally flawed because of cheap infrastructure. Going back to the penalty itself, the biggest point of contention would be on the concept of his body being 'unnaturally bigger'. In this case I feel the decision could really go either way depending on the viewpoint of the referee. I don't think it's massively egregious to say it is a penalty. It can be 'harsh', 'unlucky' and 'soft' and still be a reasonable conclusion for the referee to award a penalty. Or at least be reasonable enough not to suggest it is a 'worldwide' embarrassment and/or cheating. I'm not entirely ignorant of my own bias. I fully understand it's easier to go 'well, what's the big deal here?' when the decision goes in favour of the team you support and professionally cover. It's going to generate noise, I get that. Yet, there's something uneasy about the fervour with which this is being labelled as objectively a 'disgusting' crime against Hearts and their title bid. Celtic have earned 19 points with goals scored after the 80th minute this season. They're finding a way. It might be enough. Rage on!