Monday, March 4, 2024
Stay in control of your digital finances with ledger live customizable portfolio views, tailoring your dashboard to fit your investment strategy. Официальный сайт казино вавада и рабочее зеркало по ссылке. Бонусы за регистрацию 100 FS.
The Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 2

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

Week 2 overview

There were nine Video Reviews during Week 2. These included the first goalkeeper this season to be penalized for moving forward off his goal line at the taking of a penalty kick, and the first goal to be disallowed in MLS for non-intentional handball by an attacker – both new law changes.


DC vs MIA: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal.

What Happened: A goal was scored by Lewis Morgan (MIA) and awarded by the on-field officials. However, the VAR saw that possession had been gained by Inter Miami at the start of the APP through a handball offense by Román Torres (MIA). The handball offense had denied Julian Gressel (DC) an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

The Video Review Process:

0:00-0:15 – The VAR began to look to see if Torres handled the ball.

0:29 – Inter Miami scored at the same moment that the VAR had identified the handball using the Low EZ camera.

1:01 – A Video Review was recommended for a red card for DOGSO.

1:37 – The referee was shown the handball at the RRA.

1:47 – The referee asked to see a wide angle to be able to view the DOGSO aspect of the play.

PRO’s Decision: This was a somewhat unusual and complex situation, but the handball offense was clear, as was the DOGSO aspect. The goal was correctly canceled, and a red card was shown to Torres.

This was a very good use of the Video Review system.

 


RSL vs RBNY: Review for no goal (handball in APP) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal.

What Happened: A goal was scored by Douglas Martínez (RSL) and awarded by the on-field match officials. On checking the footage, the VAR saw that Martínez had headed the ball onto his left arm on its way into the goal.

The Video Review Process:

0:00-0:10 – The VAR suspected that there was contact on the hand and spotted it 10 seconds into the check.

0:48 – After confirming the handball with several other angles, the VAR recommended a Video Review.

The referee was shown the Tight angle and agreed that the ball went in off the hand.

PRO’s Decision: Martínez committed a handball offense under the new interpretations of Law 12, and the goal was correctly disallowed. This was a really good use of Video Review.

 


TOR vs NYC: Review for goal (offside) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal.

What Happened: A goal was scored by Ifunanyachi Achara (TOR) and awarded by the on-field match officials. However, the VAR identified that Achara was in an offside position when the ball was played to him by Jonathan Osorio (TOR).

PRO’s Decision: The goal was correctly disallowed for offside. This was a good use of the Video Review system.

 


TOR vs NYC: Review for penalty kick – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Play on.

What Happened: A Toronto FC penalty appeal was waved away by the referee after Justin Morrow (TOR) went to ground in the New York City penalty area under a challenge from James Sands (NYC). The VAR checked the footage and formed the opinion that the non-awarding of a penalty kick was a clear and obvious error, and as such, recommended a Video Review.

The Video Review Process:

The VAR looked at the footage in slow motion and focused on the extended leg of Sands (NYC).

At the RRA, the referee asked for various angles to be shown at full speed and decided to maintain his original no penalty decision.

PRO’s Decision: This situation is an extremely subjective one. At normal speed, the way Morrow (TOR) fell looked somewhat unnatural after a heavy touch. In slow motion, this looks more like a penalty kick, with Sands extending his leg out late after the ball had passed him.

We continue to work to a high threshold when identifying clear and obvious errors, and encourage the VARs to only become involved when that threshold has clearly been reached. This situation did not quite reach that threshold.

 


DAL vs MTL: Review for penalty kick (handball) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: No penalty.

What Happened: FC Dallas appealed for a penalty kick when the ball made contact with the arm of defender Jorge Corrales (MTL). The referee allowed play to continue.

The Video Review Process:

Mainly using the High Right EZ camera, the VAR believed that Corrales deliberately played the ball and recommended a Video Review.

At the RRA, the referee saw that the ball came off the back of a teammate and was, in his opinion, not a handball offense.

PRO’s Decision: This was an unnecessary review as Corrales did not commit a handball offense. The ball deflected onto his arm from a colleague who was very close and just ahead of Corrales. The referee correctly retained his no-penalty decision.

 


ATL vs CIN: Review for a red card (serious foul play) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: No foul.

What Happened: Late in the game, Allan Cruz (CIN) and Anton Walkes (ATL) challenged for the ball. Walkes went to ground and arrived at the ball first, playing it away from Cruz, whose studs made some contact on the lower leg of Walkes, just above the ankle. The referee allowed play to continue.

The Video Review Process:

The VAR recommended a Video Review since no foul was given on the incident and there was contact above the ankle.

At the RRA, the referee saw the point of contact but did not believe there was excessive force. After seeing the play at both 50 percent and normal speeds, he decided that he would issue a yellow card for the reckless nature of the tackle.

PRO’s Decision: The referee determined the action was worthy of a yellow card for the reckless nature of the challenge, rather than a red for serious foul play.

Within the VAR protocol, the referee is within his rights to do this. The challenge had some elements of serious foul play (point of contact and use of studs), but there is a question about the amount of force used, and whether it was excessive. This situation happened quickly and Cruz appeared to lift away from the contact as soon as it happened, rather than exerting force. A yellow card punishment is the correct outcome in this case.

 


SJ v MIN: Review for penalty kick – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: No penalty.

What Happened: Tommy Thompson (SJ) went to ground in the Minnesota United penalty area under a challenge from Chase Gasper (MIN). The referee allowed play to continue.

The Video Review Process:

0:00-0:13 – The VAR asked the referee to delay the game when the ball went out of bounds because he was still checking the possible penalty and needed to confirm if the contact was in or outside of the penalty area.

0:48 – The VAR recommended a Video Review.

1:28 – Using the Tight angle, the referee saw the incident at 50 percent and 100 percent speeds and agreed that Gasper (MIN) had missed the ball and fouled Thompson (SJ).

PRO’s Decision: Gasper had made a late kicking motion with his leg, missing the ball and making clear contact with Thompson, thereby bringing him down. This was a clear penalty and was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.

 


SEA vs CLB: Review for goal (offside in APP) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Goal.

What Happened: A goal was scored by Miguel Ibarra (SEA) and awarded by the on-field match officials. On checking the footage, the VAR saw that Ibarra was in an offside position when he received the ball from Jordan Morris (SEA).

The Video Review Process:

0:00-0:22 – The VAR located the kick point and recommended a Video Review.

1:08 – The referee had seen the freeze frame of the offside positioned Ibarra and played it through to confirm he was the attacker that interfered with play.

PRO’s Decision: The goal was correctly disallowed. This was a good efficient use of Video Review.

 


SEA vs CLB: Review for penalty (encroachment) – not given


Starting Point – On-field Decision: Corner kick.

What Happened: A penalty taken by Raúl Ruidíaz (SEA) was saved by goalkeeper Eloy Room (CLB).

The VAR saw that Room had moved forward from the goal line prior to the kick being taken and as such, recommended a Video Review for encroachment.

PRO’s Decision: Contrary to the new Law 14 instructions, the goalkeeper had neither part of either foot still on, or in-line, with the goal line when the penalty kick was taken.

The penalty was correctly ordered to be re-taken after the review. This was a very efficient and good use of Video Review.



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

Experience the excitement with bets not on GamStop, where the action is limitless and the opportunities are vast. Bet on a variety of sports and enjoy an enhanced betting journey.

online pokies real money