The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 13
The Definitive Angle is PRO’s analysis of the week’s Video Review use in MLS.
Week 13 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 13.
TOR vs ORL: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given
What happened: A long ball was played out of defense and up-field by Orlando City. Defender Auro (TOR) tried to intercept the ball but only succeeded in touching it into the path of Benji Michel (ORL). As Michel followed the loose ball into the Toronto FC penalty area after Auro’s touch, goalkeeper Alex Bono (TOR) came rushing out of his goal to challenge Michel. Both players missed the ball, but Bono collided with Michel, making heavy contact on the Orlando City player. The referee initially penalized Michel and awarded a direct freekick to Toronto FC.
The VAR could see that it was Bono who had committed an offense because it was his movement directly into Michel which had created the collision, as Michel was trying to move past Bono to the side.
On-field decision: Direct freekick to Toronto FC.
Type of review: Penalty kick to Orlando City.
Final decision after review: Penalty kick.
Length of review: 2:55.
PRO’s Opinion: Awarding a penalty kick to Orlando City and cautioning Bono for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity while attempting to play the ball within the penalty area was the correct outcome. This was a good use of Video Review.
CLB vs NYC: Review for penalty kick (in or out) – not given
What happened: A shot on goal by Gudmundur Thórarinsson (NYC) was blocked by the right arm of defender Saad Abdul-Salaam (CLB) near to the front edge of the Columbus Crew penalty area. Although Abdul-Salaam’s arm was initially naturally positioned as he moved across the top of the penalty area, at the last moment, he moved his arm down into the path of the ball to block it.
The referee penalized Abdul-Salaam and awarded a penalty kick to New York City. From his position, he judged that the handball offense had occurred inside the penalty area. He also cautioned Abdul-Salaam for stopping a promising attack by handball.
On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: Direct freekick.
Final decision after review: Direct freekick.
Length of review: 2:17.
PRO’s Opinion: Abdul-Salaam was fully outside the penalty area when the ball made contact with his arm, and the award of a penalty kick, in this case, was a clear and obvious error. After Video Review, the referee correctly changed his penalty kick award to a direct freekick outside the penalty area. This was a good use of Video Review.
PHI vs DC: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – given
What happened: A penalty kick was awarded to Philadelphia Union when Leon Flach (PHI) poked the ball past Júnior Moreno (DC) within the DC United penalty area. As Flach touched the ball, Moreno reached out with his left leg, over which Flach went to ground. The referee, who was positioned close-by, immediately penalized Moreno and awarded a penalty to Philadelphia Union, even though Flach instantly rose back to his feet and attempted to carry on playing without appealing for a penalty kick.
The referee formed the judgement at that moment that he had reacted too quickly, and his award of the penalty kick was not aligned with the expectations of the players. After consultation with the referee, the VAR recommended a Video Review, after which the referee reversed his penalty kick decision and recommenced the game through a dropped ball to goalkeeper Bill Hamid (DC).
On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty.
Length of review: 1:45.
PRO’s Opinion: This was an unusual situation. It appears that only Flach touched the ball, with Moreno just failing to make contact. Furthermore, Moreno’s leg was extended into the path of Flach, albeit the actual contact between the legs was minimal and Flach went down easily.
However, Flach did not appear to expect a penalty kick to be awarded in these circumstances, and the final outcome appeared to be readily accepted by the players. A credible intervention to reach an outcome in line with what was expected by the participants.
PHI vs DC: Review for goal (offside in APP) – not given
What happened: A goal was scored by Sergio Santos (PHI) and awarded by the on-field officials. However, when the VAR checked the video footage, he could see that Santos was in an offside position in the DC United goal area when the ball was headed to him by teammate Kacper Przybylko.
On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside in APP.
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 1:35.
PRO’s Decision: The offside infraction is clear, and as the AVAR clearly pointed out, it did not matter if Przybylko touched the ball or not; he had interfered either way. This was a good use of Video Review.
VAN vs LA: Review for goal (offside in APP) – not given
What happened: A goal was scored by Ethan Zubak (LA) and awarded by the on-field match officials. When the goal was checked, the VAR saw that Zubak was ahead of the ball and the second-rearmost defender and in an offside position at the top of the Vancouver Whitecaps goal area when the ball was played to him by teammate Samuel Grandsir (LA).
On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside in APP.
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 1:56.
PRO’s Opinion: This was a good use of Video Review.
