The Definitive Angle is PRO’s analysis of the week’s Video Review use in MLS.
Week 16 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 16.
NYC vs CLB: Review for goal (offside in APP) – given
What Happened: A goal was scored by Santiago Rodríguez (NYC) but was disallowed for offside. The VAR could see that from the original shot on goal by Valentín Castellanos (NYC) there were no New York City players in an offside position. After the shot had been saved by the goalkeeper Eloy Room (CLB), the ball rebounded to Maxi Moralez (NYC) who had run from an onside position. Moralez then pulled the ball back to Rodriguez, who was behind the ball when it was passed to him and was therefore onside.
On-field decision: No goal – offside.
Type of review: Goal.
Final decision after review: Goal.
Length of review: 1:16.
PRO’s Opinion: This was a good goal and a good, efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.
NYC vs CLB: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given
What Happened: With Pedro Santos (CLB) in possession of the ball, he was challenged by defender Malte Amundsen (NYC). Santos went down, but the referee deemed that the ball had been won cleanly by Amundsen prior to any contact being made on Santos and allowed play to continue.
The VAR could see that only Santos had played the ball, using his right foot to move it away from Amundsen. Amundsen had made contact on Santos but failed to make contact with the ball. This was a foul challenge for which a penalty kick should have been awarded. The VAR requested that the game be stopped so a Video Review could take place. The referee, having looked at the footage at the RRA, awarded a penalty kick to Columbus Crew.
On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick (foul challenge).
Final decision after review: Penalty kick.
Length of review: 1:40.
PRO’s Opinion: The direction that the ball had moved was consistent with where it would have gone had the defender touched it. However, the video footage proved otherwise, and a clear and obvious error was correctly rectified.
SEA vs SJ: Review for goal (ball out of play in APP) – not given
What Happened: A goal was scored by Chris Wondolowski (SJ) and awarded by the on-field match officials. The VAR checked the attacking possession phase (APP) prior to the goal being scored, and she could see that Andrés Ríos (SJ) had retrieved the ball from close to the touchline, before he passed to Marcos López (SJ), who in turn passed the ball to Wondolowski to score.
The VAR checked the footage on the high end zone camera and she formed the opinion that all of the ball had fully crossed all of the touchline.
On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – ball out of play.
Final decision after review: No goal – throw in.
Length of review: 1:59.
PRO’s Opinion: The VAR ultimately has to make a judgment as to whether the images provide enough evidence that the ball is fully out. There is sufficient evidence from the images available to draw that conclusion. The goal was correctly rescinded and game restarted with a throw in.
CIN vs DC: Review for goal (offside in APP) – not given
What Happened: A goal was scored by Moses Nyeman (DC) and awarded by the on-field match officials. The VAR identified an offside offense in the APP when the ball was played forward to Yordy Reyna (DC).
On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside in APP.
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 2:13.
PRO’s Opinion: Reyna was in an offside position when the pass was made, and he then played the ball to Drew Skundrich (DC), who in turn passed it to Nyeman to score. The offside position of Reyna in the APP was clear and obvious and the referee disallowed the goal. This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review system.
PHI vs CHI: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given
What Happened: A long ball forward by Philadelphia Union was chased by attacker Cory Burke (PHI) and defender Wyatt Omsberg (CHI), who was tracking back. Omsberg, who was deeper than Burke, reached the ball first and attempted to head it back to his goalkeeper Bobby Shuttleworth (CHI), but he failed to make enough contact on his header for it to reach Shuttleworth. This allowed Burke to move onto the ball and presented him with an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Burke was centrally positioned, about to enter the Chicago Fire penalty area with only the goalkeeper to beat. However, this obvious goalscoring opportunity was denied by Omsberg, who stumbled into Burke from behind, thereby knocking him off balance and ultimately bringing him down. As he had fallen, Omsberg’s left knee had made very clear contact with the back of Burke’s right calf.
Even though Burke did still make contact on the ball, it was while severely off balance and the ball then ricocheted wide. The VAR identified the contact by Omsberg’s knee on the back of Burke’s leg and he could see that the contact had happened just outside the penalty area. The referee looked at the footage at the RRA and awarded a direct freekick to Philadelphia Union just outside the Chicago Fire penalty area and issued a red card to Omsberg.
On-field decision: Goal kick.
Type of review: Direct freekick and red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: Direct freekick and red card.
Length of review: 3:10.
PRO’s Opinion: This was foul contact which had denied Burke an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a DOGSO red card is the correct outcome. This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error in a sequence of play which was challenging for the referee to fully and accurately assess in real-time.