Sunday, June 16, 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 19

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

Week 19 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 19.


HOU vs COL: Review for penalty kick (offside in APP) – not given


What Happened: A penalty kick was awarded to Houston Dynamo when Maxi Urruti (HOU) was brought down by goalkeeper William Yarbrough (COL) in the Colorado Rapids penalty area. Yarbrough had come out legs first to challenge Urruti but failed to make contact on the ball. He only succeeded in making contact on the right foot of Urruti and brought him down; this was a clear foul which the referee correctly identified. The VAR checked the APP and saw that Urruti was in an offside position when the ball was played through to him by teammate Matías Vera (HOU).

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty – offside in the APP.
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 1:54.

PRO’s Opinion: Although it was a close call, there was clear video evidence that Urruti was ahead of the second rearmost defender, Lalas Abubakar (COL), and especially his left knee. Because the two players were very close together, this judgment was made easier. This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a close, but clearly and obviously, incorrect decision.


MTL vs RBNY: Review for penalty kick (encroachment) – not given


What Happened: A penalty kick was taken by CF Montréal, but it was saved by goalkeeper Carlos Coronel (RBNY), who dived to his left to do so. However, the VAR could see that Coronel had encroached forward from the goal line prior to the kick being taken, and no longer had any part of either foot on or over the line at the moment when the kick was taken.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick – encroachment not given.
Final decision after review: Re-take of penalty kick and warning to the goalkeeper.
Length of review: 0:54.

PRO’s Opinion: The kick was correctly ordered to be retaken.


MTL vs RBNY: Review for penalty kick (encroachment) – not given


What Happened: The retaken penalty kick was saved by Coronel, this time by diving to his right. Again, when the VAR checked the footage, she could see that he had encroached forward off his line prior to the kick being taken, this time by an even greater distance.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick – encroachment not given.
Final decision after review: Re-take of penalty kick and yellow card to the goalkeeper.
Length of review: 0:55.

PRO’s Opinion: Another Video Review was correctly recommended and the penalty kick was ordered to be retaken. It is important to note that the match officials were correct in every step of the penalty process. It is also important to note that the taker of the penalty kick did not commit any offense by pausing momentarily during his run-up before taking the final step, as he is allowed to do this within the Laws of the Game.


RSL vs ATX: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


What Happened: Justin Meram (RSL) was fouled just outside the Austin FC penalty area by Julio Cascante (ATX), who deliberately pulled Meram back to prevent him from progressing into the Austin FC penalty area while in possession of the ball. The holding offense took Meram to the ground. The referee identified the offense and penalized Cascante through the award of a direct freekick to Real Salt Lake and the issuing of a yellow card for stopping a promising attack. In the VAR’s opinion, all four required elements of DOGSO were present (direction of play, distance from goal, number and location of other defenders, and control/likely control of the ball).

On-field decision: Direct freekick and yellow card (SPA).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 2:26.

PRO’s Opinion: While there are some merits in the final DOGSO outcome in this case, of more importance was the fact that the VAR and AVAR failed to identify that Meram was clearly in an offside position when the ball was initially played to him by teammate Bobby Wood (RSL), and as such no obvious goalscoring opportunity existed in this case.


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


What Happened: A goal was scored by Mamadou Fall (LAFC), when he headed home an in-swinging crossed freekick from teammate Eduard Atuesta (LAFC), from within the goal area. The VAR saw that Fall appeared to be very slightly offside when the freekick was taken by being ahead of second rearmost defender Alan Franco (ATL). On closer examination, he concluded that Fall was offside.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 1:28.

PRO’s Opinion: Fall does appear to be very marginally offside. The fact both players are very close in proximity makes this judgment an easier one than if they were separated laterally across the field of play. This was a very close decision and sits on the edge of the clear and obvious line for intervention.



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