St Mirren analysis: From controversial refereeing decisions to Corrie Ndaba's masterclass

Decisions did not go Killie's way but there was plenty to be positive about as we break down the 90 minutes in detail

A point on the road with 10 men is never to be sniffed at, but Derek McInnes and Kilmarnock will be frustrated today that they didn’t come away from Paisley with all three.

A Marley Watkins goal and an OG by St Mirren cancelled out Toyosi Olusanya’s strike and a Mark O’Hara penalty.

You can read Ewan Paton’s match report from the ground here, and all the thoughts of the manager here.

With the dust settled, we’ve watched the 90 minutes back to highlight some key contributors, where Killie improved and, of course, those controversial refereeing decisions.

Let’s have a look at the good, the bad and the ugly from Paisley.

Ref off

There’s really only one place to start, and that’s with referee Matthew MacDermid.

The standard of officiating in Scotland is poor at the best of times, but on Saturday the man in the middle had a shocker. As we dive into this we’ll be referring to the IFAB Laws of the Game, otherwise known as the rules the officials are supposed to be applying.

First up was his decision not to show a red card to Mikael Mandron for two first half incidents in quick succession.

On the first, the Frenchman was backing in to Joe Wright and MacDermid judged that he’d used an elbow in doing so.

MacDermid presumably judged he had been reckless (IFAB: “Any action by a player which disregards the danger to, or consequences for, the opponent.”) rather than violent and showed him a yellow card.

You could argue that this booking was somewhat harsh, Mandron was trying to hold off the defender and caught him in doing so. It absolutely could fall under reckless conduct, but it’s not a yellow card the referee has to give.

The second incident, however, is.

Mandron dives into a tackle on Stuart Findlay, catching him above the ankle and getting nothing on the ball. It’s a clear yellow card, and therefore a sending off.

Some have made the argument that, because the first was harsh, the decisions balance out but what kind of defence is that? The referee was wrong both times so that’s OK?

McInnes gave a similar line after the match when he said: “I don't want to see Mandron getting sent off for that. I don't. It’s two tackles. Is the second one a yellow card offence? It probably is. And if it’s not for the first one, I think he's booked that one.”

With all due respect to the manager, who was far more magnanimous than he could have been, it’s a specious argument.

The official obviously thought Mandron’s first challenge was enough to warrant a yellow card. Having given him that caution, he has to then send the St Mirren player off for a second reckless challenge - a decision on the first has already been taken, it’s completely immaterial to the second which has to be judged in isolation. That’s the referee’s job and he failed to do it.

Stephen Robinson clearly realised his side had gotten away with one, as he substituted Mandron after 20 minutes.

The second big flashpoint came between Kyle Vassell and Sean Rooney.

The Killie captain went down under the challenge of the St Mirren man and held the ball between his legs.

At this point, Rooney aimed not one but two kicks at Vassell as he lay on the ground - no action was taken either by the referee or VAR.

The IFAB rules define serious foul play, which is a red card offence, as a “tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality”.

Violent conduct, which is also a sending off offence, is “when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball”.

Either could apply in this situation, depending on whether one believes Rooney was legitimately trying to play the ball.

Let’s take a look at the situation at the time.

Does it seem plausible that the first kick aimed by Rooney was an attempt to launch the ball upfield, given that Corrie Ndaba and his own team-mate are in the way?

On the second Ndaba is even closer to him and the referee is blowing his whistle - does it seem credible Rooney was trying to play the ball rather than simply lashing out at Vassell?

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, it’s clearly serious foul play which would be a red card anyway.

The referee could perhaps argue that his vision was obscured by David Watson, but what’s the excuse for VAR not getting involved?

McInnes said after the match: “If VAR isn't going to get involved in that, when are they going to get involved?

“Vassell is between the ball and Shaun Rooney. If Rooney is trying to get to the ball and showing a bit of restraint to try and get there, but he went full-blooded volleyed into Kyle Vassell’s hip.

“The referee doesn’t even speak to him, never mind deal with him. I’m disappointed that that has been allowed, that it is allowed on a football pitch. It shouldn't be and it should be condemned.

“I don’t like talking about other team’s players, but that was an outrageous part of refereeing.”

Willie Collum will probably be on TV doing a mea culpa for that one in due course.

The third big talking point was the penalty for St Mirren.

Under the old interpretation of the handball law, where an offence had to be deliberate, this probably wouldn’t have been given but the updated law states that it’s an offence if a player “touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger”. It then expounds: “A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.”

While referees have been guided to take more account of how close a player is to the ball when it strikes them - as we saw at Celtic Park on Saturday - they’re also going to be far more strict when the hand or arm blocks a shot on target.

There’s not much Wright can do about it, but that was probably always going to be a penalty.

As for the red card at the end of the first half, McInnes has already said Wright will be fined two weeks’ wages.

He punched the defender in the Davina McCalls, it’s violent conduct and utterly stupid by the defender.

(As an aside, I wonder if the creators of Wyscout ever thought their highlight feature would be used to illuminate a man punching another man in the testicles?)

St Mirren thought they had a late winner but it was ruled out for a high boot on David Watson.

It’s one that is frustrating if it goes against you - as it did for Watson away at Copenhagen - but always likely to be given.

Better on the ball

A positive to take from Paisley is how much more patient and composed Killie appeared in possession and that’s borne out in the numbers.

Despite being down to 10 men they had slightly more possession than St Mirren (52% to 48%) and played far fewer long balls than in recent matches.

Kilmarnock played 31 long passes in Paisley (58% completed) as compared to 72 against Hibs ( 60%), 60 against Copenhagen (53% and 58 away at Aberdeen (52%).

The goals may both have come from set pieces, but McInnes’ men looked far more willing to play it on the deck than they have at times this season.

A big part of the reason for that was the performance of Liam Polworth, who we’ll discuss in detail next.