Sunday, July 14, 2024
Присоединяйтесь к вавада казино и наслаждайтесь азартными играми. Удобный вход, быстрая регистрация и множество бонусов ждут вас. Используйте промокоды для максимальных выигрышей. В вавада казино вас ждут лучшие игры и щедрые бонусы. Регистрация проста, зеркала обеспечат удобный вход, а промокоды помогут увеличить ваши шансы на выигрыш. Immediate Venture Canadian Sports has seen a lot of athletes using Steroids Canada over the years. Ben Johnson is one that comes to mind who had his Gold medal taken away at the Olympics.
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 6

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

Week 6 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 6.


RSL vs TOR: Review for goal (foul in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Jayden Nelson (TOR) and was awarded by the on-field officials to make the score 2-2. However, Real Salt Lake appealed to the referee that Damir Kreilach (RSL) had been fouled by Nelson in order for the latter to gain possession at the start of the attacking possession phase prior to the goal.

The VAR examined the coming together between Nelson and Kreilach and, after viewing various angles, formed the opinion that the non-award of a freekick was a clear and obvious error and the goal should be disallowed.

The referee looked at the footage at the RRA but did not concur with the VAR that a foul had been committed by Nelson, and he retained his initial decision and allowed the goal to stand.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul challenge.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 3:25.

PRO’s Opinion: While a case can be made that a foul was committed due to Nelson’s right knee appearing to make contact with the left knee of Kreilach very slightly before Nelson touched the ball, the contact on Kreliach and on the ball happened almost simultaneously. Additionally, Kreilach entered the challenge in an unorthodox manner and appeared to be off balance.

Once the referee had decided to give a goal, PRO did not feel the footage provided enough clear and obvious evidence to overturn it.


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


What Happened: In time allowed for stoppages at the end of the game, with the score at 2-1 to LA Galaxy, a goal was scored by Latif Blessing (LAFC) and awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR saw that as Carlos Vela (LAFC) crossed the ball, teammate Mamadou Fall (LAFC) was in an offside position. He remained in that position as the ball flashed across the penalty area, hitting Blessing on the way through before then making contact with Nick DePuy (LA) and then reaching Fall.

The VAR could see that the contact on the ball from DePuy was a deflection off his arm, which was naturally positioned (and therefore not a handball offense). The contact was not a deliberate play of the ball, because DePuy had simply reacted to the ball coming to him at pace. The reaction of leaning towards the ball is not considered a deliberate play when evaluating offside.

Therefore, the contact on DePuy did not negate Fall’s offside position, which was still relevant from the moment it was last touched by a teammate – in this case when it touched Blessing as it came across the penalty area.

Fall had then proceeded to turn and shoot on goal, the shot being blocked by DePuy as the ball deflected off him to Blessing to score. However, Blessing was in an offside position when the shot came in from Fall. DePuy’s actions can be considered a save, which does not negate an offside position, and when Blessing gained an advantage in an offside position when the ball rebounded to him off DePuy, he also committed an offense.

So even if Fall had not committed an offside offense, Blessing still had. There were two valid reasons to disallow the goal in this case. The VAR recommended a Video Review for the initial offside offense committed by Fall, and having looked at the sequence for himself at the RRA, the referee concurred with the VAR and disallowed the goal for offside.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:49.

PRO’s Opinion: This was an excellent use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error (albeit a complex call in real-time) in a critical match situation.


VAN vs POR: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: In the closing stages of the first half, Marvin Loría (POR) went down in the Vancouver Whitecaps penalty area under a challenge from Cristian Dájome (VAN). Portland Timbers appealed for a penalty kick, but the referee waved away those appeals and the game continued.

The VAR saw that Dájome had not made any contact on the ball but had collided heavily into the back of Loría, and brought him down after he had touched the ball forward. This was a clear foul and the VAR recommended a Video Review.

After looking at the footage at the RRA the referee concurred with the VAR and awarded a penalty kick to Portland Timbers.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick – foul challenge.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 2:05.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review process to rectify a clear and obvious error.


VAN vs POR: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Vancouver Whitecaps appealed for a penalty kick when Ryan Gauld (VAN) went down just inside the Portland Timbers’ penalty area under a challenge from Claudio Bravo (POR), past whom he had just touched the ball. The referee waved away the appeals and the game continued. The VAR saw that Bravo had made no contact on the ball but had made clear lower body foul contact on Gauld.

As such, a Video Review was recommended for a penalty kick to be awarded. The referee viewed the footage at the RRA concurred with the VAR, and awarded a penalty kick to Vancouver Whitecaps.

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

PRO’s Opinion: This was another good use of Video Review to rectify a clear and obvious error.


VAN vs POR: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – given


What Happened: In time allowed for stoppages at the end of the game, with the score at 3-1 to Portland Timbers, the referee awarded a penalty kick to Vancouver Whitecaps for what he perceived in real-time to be a push by Claudio Bravo (POR) on Déiber Caicedo (VAN) in the Timbers’ penalty area which resulted in the latter going down.

The VAR checked the footage to establish whether the on-field decision was a clear and obvious error and saw the two players made contact side by side, but no evidence of a push or other offense by Bravo.

He recommended a Video Review, but when the referee looked at the footage at the RRA, he retained his original decision, maintaining his view that there was a foul. Vancouver Whitecaps converted the penalty to make the score 3-2 to Portland Timbers, which is how the game finished.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:20.

PRO’s Opinion: There was no foul committed by Bravo and the referee should have overturned his penalty kick decision.



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