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
The Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 12

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

Week 12 overview
There were six Video Reviews during Week 12.


ATX vs LAFC: Review for red card (serious foul play) – not given


What Happened: In the first minute of the game, Daniel Pereira (ATX) committed a foul challenge on Eduard Atuesta (LAFC), which was penalized by the referee. After Atuesta had played the ball, Pereira arrived late and went over the ball with a straight right leg, causing the studs of his right foot to make contact high on the shin of Atuesta’s right leg before Pereira’s foot slid down to make heavy contact on the front of Atuesta’s ankle. The referee issued a yellow card to Pereira for a reckless foul challenge.

The VAR deemed the action to be serious foul play and recommended a Video Review. The referee looked at the footage at the RRA but decided to maintain his original yellow card decision.

On-field decision: Yellow card (reckless challenge).
Type of review: Red card (serious foul play).
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:50.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a difficult officiating decision because the incident happened so early in the game, and a decision to reduce a team to 10 men so early clearly has a significant potential impact on the course the game will take. However, the actions of Pereira fulfilled the criteria for serious foul play in that the contact involved excessive force and endangered the safety of the Atuesta. A red card should have been shown.


ATX vs LAFC: Review for goal (foul in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Carlos Vela (LAFC) and awarded by the on-field match officials. On checking the goal, the VAR could see that a clear foul had been committed by Raheem Edwards (LAFC) at the start of the APP, which led to the goal.

A Video Review was recommended, and when the referee saw the footage at the RRA, he agreed with the VAR and disallowed the goal.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul in APP.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:04.

PRO’s Opinion: Raheem Edwards had kicked through the leg of Alexander Ring (ATX) and made no contact on the ball, causing Ring to lose possession and starting the attack for Los Angeles FC. The referee had incorrectly believed that Edwards had played the ball cleanly. The game was re-started with a direct freekick to Austin FC at the location of the foul by Edwards. This was an excellent use of the Video Review system.


COL vs MIN: Review for red card (violent conduct) – not given


What Happened: As both teams were setting up for a Minnesota United attacking freekick, Diego Rubio (COL) was marking Ramón Ábila (MIN) near the edge of the Colorado Rapids penalty area. Rubio went to ground; however, the reason for this was not identified by the on-field match officials.

The VAR could see that Ábila had used his right hand to punch Rubio in the right side of the torso. A Video Review was recommended, and the referee correctly issued a red card to Ábila for violent conduct.

On-field decision: Missed Incident.
Type of review: Red card (violent conduct).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 2:10.

PRO’s Opinion: This was an excellent use of the Video Review system to identify and deal with an act of violent conduct which the on-field officials had missed.


MTL vs NYC: Review for penalty kick (offside in APP) – not given


What Happened: New York City appealed for a penalty kick when goalkeeper James Pantemis (MTL) came rushing out of his goal to challenge Thiago (NYC) in the Montreal Impact penalty area. Pantemis failed to make contact on the ball but made heavy contact with Thiago. This was a foul challenge and should have been penalized by the referee with the award of a penalty kick.

The VAR identified that Valentín Castellanos (NYC) had been in an offside position when the ball was played up to him, prior to him heading the ball on for Thiago to run on to, which is when the goalkeeper fouled Thiago.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty (with a possible offside in APP).
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 2.52.

PRO’s Opinion: Although the VAR was correct in this case in identifying the penalty offense as a clear error, the judgment in terms of the offside situation was not in line with what we expect. The on-field decision made by the assistant referee was onside, and there was insufficient video evidence to conclude that the on-field decision was clearly and obviously wrong. As such, the Video Review should only have related to the penalty kick and not the offside situation.


NSH vs ATL: Review for goal (offside in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by CJ Sapong (NSH) and awarded by the on-field officials. When the goal was checked, the VAR saw that Sapong was in an offside position within the Atlanta United goal area when the ball was headed to him by teammate Hany Mukhtar. Sapong was ahead of the ball and the second rearmost defender.

After a Video Review, the referee correctly disallowed the goal for offside.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 1:32

PRO’s Opinion: This was the correct recommendation and outcome.


CIN vs CLB: Review for goal (foul in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored in the first minute of the game by Edgar Castillo (CIN). Prior to the goal, Harrison Afful (CLB) and Isaac Atanga (CIN) came together off the ball in the Columbus Crew goal area. Both players went to ground, and Afful stayed there as play was allowed to proceed, and FC Cincinnati scored.

The VAR recommended a review; however, the referee retained his original decision, allowing the goal to stand.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul in APP.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:50.

PRO’s Opinion: This call had some subjectivity to it. The video shows that Afful moved left into the path of Atanga, who was moving forward. The contact from Atanga was more from behind than it was shoulder-to-shoulder; however, Afful’s movement left did contribute to the collision.

The coming together was almost certainly accidental, and while it did potentially impact Afful’s ability to actively defend the next sequence, it is subjective as to whether Atanga should have been penalized. The non-award of a freekick did not reach the threshold for a clear and obvious error.



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