Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Stay in control of your digital finances with ledger live customizable portfolio views, tailoring your dashboard to fit your investment strategy.
The Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 7

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

Week 7 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 7.


CLB vs TOR: Review for goal (offside in the APP) – given


What happened: A goal scored by Gyasi Zardes (CLB) was disallowed for offside by the on-field match officials.

On-field decision: No goal – offside.
Type of review: Goal.
Final decision after review: Goal.
Length of review: 1:47.

PRO’s Opinion: The VAR could see that Zardes was not in an offside position when the ball was played through to him by teammate Pedro Santos (CLB). After looking at the footage at the RRA, the referee correctly awarded a goal. This was a good use of Video Review to rectify a clear and obvious error.


CHI vs MTL: Review for goal (offside in the APP) – not given


What happened: At the end of the game, a goal was scored by Wyatt Omsberg (CHI) and awarded by the on-field match officials. The VAR checked the video footage of the goal and identified an offside offense in the APP prior to the goal when Chinonso Nnamdi (CHI) moved from an offside position to challenge Rudy Camacho (MTL) for a cross.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal – offside.
Length of review: 2:07.

PRO’s Opinion: The action of challenging Camacho, having moved from an offside position, was a clear offside offense, and the non-award of an indirect freekick to CF Montréal by the on-field officials was a clear and obvious error. The offense was also within the APP, because after Nnamdi had challenged Camacho, the Chicago Fire attack was continuous, with the ball going to the right before being crossed to Omsberg to score.

The referee correctly disallowed the goal and awarded an indirect freekick to CF Montréal. This was the correct outcome and a good use of Video Review in a match critical situation.


COL vs DAL: Review for penalty (foul challenge) – not given


What happened: During a Colorado Rapids’ attack, a crossed ball from the left side of the field was controlled on the chest by midfielder Nicolás Mezquida (COL) in front of goal. Moving in from behind Mezquida was defender Bressan (DAL), who moved his right leg slightly towards Mezquida’s right leg, thereby tripping him, bringing him down, and unable to get his shot away. In real-time the referee did not identify the contact and allowed play to continue.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick – foul.
Final decision after review: Penalty kick and yellow card.
Length of review: 2:24.

PRO’s Opinion: The referee agreed with the VAR and therefore awarded a penalty kick to Colorado Rapids and also issued a yellow card to Bressan for DOGSO with an attempt to play the ball, feeling that Bressan’s actions were a clumsy attempt to play the ball. While this was a good use of Video Review to rectify the clear and obvious error of not awarding a penalty kick, the disciplinary sanction was not correct. The action of Bressan should have resulted in the showing of a red card.

Mezquida was clearly denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as all criteria for DOGSO were in place, and Bressan was too far away to be attempting to play the ball. Showing a yellow card for players who commit DOGSO in the penalty area is only reserved for those who make a genuine attempt to play the ball, which was not the case here.


PHI vs POR: Review for goal (foul in the APP) – not given


What happened: Just before halftime, a goal was scored by Leon Flach (PHI) and awarded by the on-field match officials. When checking the goal, the VAR could see that the ball had made contact with the left arm of Flach immediately prior to him scoring.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul in APP.
Final decision after review: No goal – handball.
Length of review: 2:23.

PRO’s Opinion: Regardless as to whether the arm contact with the ball was accidental or not, when the ball makes contact with a goal scorer’s hand/arm immediately prior to him scoring, it is an offense. The goal was correctly disallowed. This was a good use of Video Review, intervening to rectify a difficult situation for the on-field officials to identify in real-time.


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


What happened: A goal was scored by Fredy Montero (SEA) and awarded by the on-field match officials. The VAR could see that Raúl Ruidíaz (SEA) had committed an offside offense in the APP before the goal by challenging an opponent for the ball while in an offside position.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal – offside.
Length of review: 3:06.

PRO’s Opinion: Although the footage is not conclusive as to whether Ruidíaz made contact on the ball, that is irrelevant in terms of whether or not he committed an offside offense. Merely challenging for the ball in the way he did while in an offside position is an offense.

His clear action had an impact on the defender and goalkeeper, which would make this interfering with an opponent if he did not touch the ball. The goal was correctly disallowed after review. This was a good use of Video Review to rectify a clear and obvious error in a match critical situation.



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