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
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 30

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

Week 30 overview
There were 11 Video Reviews during Week 30.


NYC vs CIN: Review for penalty kick (in or out) – given


What Happened: The referee awarded a penalty kick to FC Cincinnati when he judged Thiago Martins (NYC) to have barged into the back of Sergio Santos (CIN), who was entering the top of the penalty area in possession and control of the ball, with only the goalkeeper to beat. The referee also issued a red card to Martins for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by an action that was not an attempt to play the ball.

The VAR checked footage of the situation as both the award of a penalty kick and the issuing of the red card are reviewable plays as per the VAR protocol. He saw that Martins had committed an offense by barging into the back of Santos and confirmed the offense had denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. However, he saw that the foul contact had occurred outside the penalty area and had not continued into the area.

As such, he recommended a Video Review for the penalty kick to be changed to a direct freekick outside the penalty area. When the referee looked at the footage for himself at the RRA screen, he concurred and changed the penalty kick to a direct freekick while also retaining the DOGSO red card for Martins.

On-field decision: Penalty kick and red card (DOGSO).
Type of review: No penalty kick – direct freekick.
Final decision after review: Direct freekick.
Length of review: 3:06.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error in a situation which was challenging for the on-field match officials to judge at full speed.


MTL vs CLB: Review for red card (violent conduct) – not given


What Happened: A yellow card was issued to Luis Díaz (CLB) after he and Kei Kamara (MTL) battled for the ball near the touchline. After the ball had moved away, Díaz kicked out toward Kamara. The on-field officials felt the action fell short of being a violent act, hence the yellow card which was issued.

However, when the VAR checked footage of the incident, he saw that the kick by Díaz’s right foot had made contact with the left leg of Kamara, and he considered the action to have brutality, with the ball nowhere near.

As such, a Video Review was recommended, and after seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee changed his yellow card decision to a red card for violent conduct.

On-field decision: Direct freekick and yellow card (unsporting behavior).
Type of review: Red card (violent conduct).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 2:16.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good use of the Video Review system. Díaz’s act was not a soccer action and involved a deliberate kick at an opponent with force, which made contact.


ATL vs TOR: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – given


What Happened: The referee awarded a penalty kick to Toronto FC for what he perceived in real-time to be a tripping foul on Federico Bernardeschi (TFC) by Alan Franco (ATL) in the Atlanta penalty area. However, when the VAR checked footage of the play, she saw that there had been no lower body contact between Franco and Bernardeschi.

The Toronto FC player had actually tripped himself as he shaped to shoot, causing him to mishit his shot and fall. The only contact between the two players was minor upper body contact that was not sufficient to be penalized. As such, the VAR recommended a Video Review for the penalty to be overturned and having looked at the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed and overturned the penalty decision.

The game correctly re-started with a drop ball to the Atlanta goalkeeper. The VAR also checked the footage for a possible handball penalty kick to Toronto FC as the ball had immediately struck the left arm of an Atlanta player after Bernardeschi had fallen. However, the VAR confirmed that the arm was low and naturally positioned, and no handball offense had been committed.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty.
Length of review: 3:40.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good and efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious on-field error.


CIN vs SJ: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Luciano Acosta (CIN) went down under challenge from Rodrigues (SJ) near to the edge of the San Jose Earthquakes penalty area, as both challenged for a dropping ball. The referee did not detect an offense in the moment and allowed play to go on, but when the VAR checked footage of the incident, he saw that Acosta had reached the dropping ball first, raising his left foot and touching the ball past Rodrigues, who arrived late with a raised right foot and made contact on Acosta’s left foot.

The Left 18 Yard camera was perfectly positioned to show that the contact had occurred just inside the penalty area. Although the contact was relatively light, the VAR concluded it was sufficient to be deemed a foul, and therefore a penalty kick should have been awarded. As such, he recommended a Video Review.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 3:40.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a credible use of the Video Review system to rectify an on-field error at the lower end of the clear and obvious threshold. The contact was difficult to see in real-time as it was somewhat slight, but this was the correct outcome.


CLT vs NYC: Review for red card (violent conduct) – not given


What Happened: The referee issued a yellow card to Christian Fuchs (CLT) for showing a lack of respect for the game when he moved his right arm toward and into the head of Tayvon Gray (NYC). Both players were jostling in the New York City penalty area, waiting for a Charlotte corner kick to be delivered. In real-time, the referee deemed that Fuch’s actions were designed to create space between him and Gray, and they lacked excessive force or brutality.

However, the VAR saw that Fuchs had thrust his elbow back into Gray’s face in an action consistent with violent conduct due to the high level of force used in a jabbing motion with the elbow, resulting in brutality. As such, a Video Review was recommended, and after viewing the footage for himself at the RRA screen, the referee concurred with the view of the VAR and duly changed his yellow card to a red one for Fuchs.

On-field decision: Yellow card (lack of respect to the game).
Type of review: Red card (violent conduct).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 3:04.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error and reach a correct outcome to appropriately penalize an offense of violent conduct.


NSH vs LA: Review for penalty kick (handball) 1 – not given


What Happened: A direct freekick taken by Hany Mukhtar (NSH) from just outside the LA Galaxy penalty area was blocked by Derrick Williams (LA), who was part of the defensive wall inside the penalty area. The referee did not detect a handball offense in real-time and therefore allowed play to continue.

The VAR checked footage of the incident and saw that it was the left arm of Williams which had made contact with the ball, near to the elbow, and that Williams had moved the arm into that position as he jumped, after the kick had been taken.

He formed the opinion that a deliberate handball offense had been committed and recommended a Video Review. After seeing the footage at the RRA, the referee agreed and awarded a penalty kick to Nashville.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 3:00.

PRO’s Opinion: There is no doubt that the left arm of Williams did block the ball and was moved up into the path of the ball after the freekick had been taken. This action by Williams was clear, and the arm was not close to the body when the ball struck it. Because the contact with the arm did not, in all likelihood, prevent the ball from going through the wall, due to Víctor Vázquez (LA) being located immediately behind Williams and therefore would probably have blocked the shot anyway, some may feel the review and subsequent penalty kick award were not the best outcome due to the lack of consequence of this contact, however, the actions of Williams were so clear that PRO supports the VAR intervention.


NSH vs LA: Review for penalty kick (handball) 2 – not given


What Happened: A shot by Chicharito (LA) was blocked in the Nashville penalty area by defender Walker Zimmerman (NSH). The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue. This happened just before time was up at the end of the game, so the referee stopped the game in order to enable the VAR to check the situation.

He communicated to the players that the game was over, pending the outcome of the VAR check. On checking the footage, the VAR formed the opinion that Zimmerman had committed a handball offense by moving his right arm down into the path of the ball to block it. He recommended a Video Review, and after seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed and awarded a penalty kick to LA Galaxy.

Zimmerman had blocked a shot on goal so the referee issued a yellow card to Zimmerman for stopping a promising attack by handball. As this was Zimmerman’s second yellow card of the game, he was then issued a red card and sent off.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 2:32.

PRO’s Opinion: Handball situations are the most subjective area of the game upon which officials are required to adjudicate, and opinions can often vary on each incident.

Zimmerman’s actions were natural and justifiable in the normal course of defending. The movement and position of his arms were a natural part of defending the play. When the ball made contact with the right arm, the arm was low, and the movement of the arm just prior to that was a consequence of normal body motion. The shot came at Zimmerman with speed and from a very short distance.

PRO doesn’t believe a clear and obvious error had occurred in the non-awarding of a penalty kick in this situation and, as such, does not believe a Video Review should have been recommended.


RBNY vs NE: Review for goal (handball in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Luquinhas (RBNY) and awarded by the on-field match officials. As always, the goal was checked by the VAR, and he saw that immediately prior to scoring, the ball had bounced up into the left arm of Luquinhas after his initial shot had been blocked.

As such, this was a handball offense, and the VAR recommended a Video Review for the goal to be disallowed. After seeing the footage at the RRA, the referee agreed and disallowed the goal.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – attacker handball.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 1:20.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good and efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error. Although there was no deliberate movement of the arm to the ball, and the position of the arm was natural, because Luquinhas immediately scored a goal after the ball had struck his arm, this was an offense – often referred to as “attacker handball” – and the goal was correctly disallowed.


RBNY vs NE: Review for penalty kick (holding) – not given


What Happened: Lewis Morgan (RBNY) was pulled to the ground by Tommy McNamara (NE). The referee had not seen an offense due to being on the wrong side of the players, but when the VAR checked the footage, he saw that McNamara’s left hand had grabbed the back of Morgan’s jersey and prevented Morgan from moving forward onto the ball which he had just touched forward.

Morgan’s jersey was very clearly extended away from his body at the back as McNamara continued to hold it in a more than momentary manner. Morgan then fell backward, evidencing impact from the holding offense.

As such, the VAR recommended a Video Review, and after looking at the footage at the RRA, the referee agreed and awarded a penalty kick to New York Red Bulls.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:20.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review system to reach a correct outcome in a situation which was clear and obvious, but which the referee had failed to penalize due to being unsighted in real-time.


PHI vs ORL: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – given


What Happened: The referee awarded a penalty kick to Philadelphia Union when goalkeeper Mason Stajduhar (ORL) was adjudged by the referee to have fouled Mikael Uhre (PHI), after both had moved towards a loose ball which Stajduhar had just fumbled. Uhre got to the ball first and poked it away from Stajduhar with his right foot before the goalkeeper bundled into him and took him down.

As with all penalty kicks, the VAR checked the footage of the incident in order to establish whether the award of the penalty kick was a clear and obvious error. On doing so, the VAR believed such an error had occurred, feeling that Uhre had gone to ground easily and was already starting to go down before Stajduhar had made contact.

He recommended a Video Review for the penalty kick to be overturned. However, when looking at the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee disagreed with the VAR and kept his original penalty kick decision, feeling that the footage supported his initial call.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 1:41.

PRO’s Opinion: The correct outcome was reached through the referee retaining his original penalty kick decision because this was not a clear error.

As Uhre had stretched for the ball, he needed to somewhat drag his left foot as he reached forward with his right to play the ball. The goalkeeper made no contact on the ball, but then made heavy contact with his body and legs upon Uhre, who was taken down by that contact and had no opportunity to stay up.

This Video Review recommendation should not have been made.


DAL vs LAFC: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


What Happened: The referee awarded a direct freekick to FC Dallas just outside the Los Angeles FC penalty area, having deemed that Ryan Hollingshead (LAFC) had fouled Paul Arriola (DAL). The referee issued a yellow card to Hollingshead, as he deemed the offense had stopped a promising attack. He felt the challenge fell short of satisfying the requirements for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity due to the location of LAFC defender Giorgio Chiellini.

However, when the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he believed that four criteria for DOGSO were present: Arriola had possession of the ball, was relatively close to goal, and was moving towards it. The other defenders, including Chiellini, were too far away to have intervened. As such, the VAR recommended a Video Review for a DOGSO red card to be issued and having looked at the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed and changed his yellow card decision to red.

On-field decision: Direct freekick and yellow card (stopping a promising attack).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 4:18.

PRO’s Opinion: The video footage indicates the ball was very slightly touched by Hollingshead, as indicated by a slight change in the spin on the ball, although it does not really change direction. The footage also shows that Hollingshead’s left leg made contact on the right foot of Arriola before that, as Hollingshead stretched in with his last-ditch attempt to defend and Arriola was preparing to shoot.

Once the referee had decided to penalize Hollingshead, the next decision to issue a red card for DOGSO was a clear one, and the VAR was correct to recommend a Video Review to rectify this 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