Monday, June 17, 2024
Ищете честное онлайн-казино? Вавада – идеальный выбор! Простая регистрация, удобное зеркало для обхода блокировок и щедрые бонусы. Наслаждайтесь азартом и честными играми в Vavada казино. Казино вавада предлагает своим пользователям простой доступ через зеркало, чтобы вы всегда могли наслаждаться любимыми играми. Регистрация занимает всего пару минут, а бонусы порадуют новичков. Честные игры и высокие выплаты – вот что ждет вас в Vavada. keybank login page
EducationThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 9

The Definitive Angle is PRO’s analysis of the week’s Video Review use in MLS.

Week 9 overview

There were four video reviews this week that resulted in disallowed goals for an offside in New York and for a foul in Minnesota, a red card issued for DOGSO in Seattle and a penalty kick awarded for handball in Kansas.

NYC vs ORL: Review for offside

Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal – Onside

What Happened: A goal was scored by Tesho Akindele (ORL) and awarded by the on-field match officials.

The VAR could see that Nani (ORL) was coming back from an offside position when the ball was played to him during the attacking possession phase (APP), so that became the focus of the check.

The Video Review Process:

Under 10 seconds: The VAR set up the kickpoint that showed Nani was in an offside position.

15 seconds: The AVAR confirmed that he has offside.

22 seconds: The VAR recommended a review

PRO’s Decision: The referee disallowed the goal for offside. Offside incidents where an attacker comes back to the ball are difficult for assistant referees because when the attacker receives the ball, they look to be clearly onside. This puts doubt into the AR’s mind and PRO trains officials not to raise the flag if they have any doubt.

This was an excellent use of the Video Review system to efficiently overturn a clear and obvious error in the awarding of a goal.

SKC vs NE: Review for (handling) penalty kick

• Operator Output

Starting Point – On-field Decision: Play on

What Happened: While New England Revolution were attacking, the ball struck the right arm of Johnny Russell (SKC) in the Sporting Kansas City penalty area. The referee allowed play to continue.

The Video Review Process:

The VAR checked the footage using several angles but mostly Tight

He saw that the ball hit the arm of Russell and believed that there was a movement of the arm towards the ball and thus formed the opinion that this was a handling offense.

The referee looked at the footage in the RRA and awarded a penalty kick to NE.

PRO’s Decision: This was an incorrect outcome. The situation did not warrant the award of a penalty kick for handling because the ball only traveled a short distance and the arm was low and quite close to Russell’s body in what can be considered a natural position.

The non-award of a penalty kick was not a clear and obvious error and the Video Review recommendation should not have been made.

This was an incorrect use of the Video Review system.

MIN vs DC: Review for foul in APP leading to a goal

• Operator Output

Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal

What Happened: With the game still scoreless, a goal was scored by Donovan Pines (DC), who headed the ball into the goal from a cross. The goal was awarded by the on-field officials.

The Video Review Process:

The VAR could see that just prior to the goal, the left arm of Frederic Brillant (DC) made contact with the right arm of goalkeeper Vito Mannone (MIN), who had extended his arm up to try to intercept the cross.

Due to the non-awarding of a free-kick to the goalkeeper, the VAR recommended a Video Review.

The referee canceled the goal and awarded a direct free-kick to MIN.

PRO’s Decision: Although there was contact between Brillant and Mannone and the final outcome of a free-kick to MIN has merit, it is subjective as to how impactful the contact on the goalkeeper was.

This situation has provoked much discussion as to whether the non-award of the initial free-kick reached the level of a clear and obvious error, due to the subjective nature of the incident.

The VAR on the day determined that it did, however, this was a difficult judgment and the amount of debate this has created indicates that the threshold was not met.

SEA vs LAFC: Review for DOGSO

• Operator Output

Starting Point – On-field Decision: Yellow Card for stopping a promising attack

What Happened: In the final minutes of the game, Diego Rossi (LAFC) ran onto a long through ball and was fouled by Kelvin Leerdam (SEA) just outside the Seattle Sounders penalty area. The referee penalized the offense and awarded a direct free-kick to LAFC, and initially issued a yellow card to Leerdam for stopping a promising attack, having doubted whether Rossi would be able to take control of the ball.

The Video Review Process:

The VAR was still looking at the action in the LAFC penalty area that had just happened when this foul was called so he started his check late.

The referee told the VAR that his only doubt is whether Rossi would take control of the ball and to check that.

After looking at various angles, the VAR could see that Rossi likely would have taken control and that all criteria for DOGSO were in place.

The VAR recommended a review sent the images to the RRA.

The referee reversed his initial yellow card decision, replacing it with a red card to Leerdam for DOGSO.

PRO’s Decision: If the foul had not occurred, Rossi would have been able to take control of the ball in the penalty area in a position which would have afforded him an obvious goalscoring opportunity. This was the correct outcome and an excellent use of the Video Review system.

1Win Casino'daki slot makinelerinde şansınızı denemeye hazır mısınız? Şanslı bir kazanan olun ve sadece birkaç tıklamayla hesabınıza gerçek para aktarın.

online pokies real money