Saturday, June 15, 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 Cup Playoffs

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

MLS Cup playoffs
There were five Video Reviews during the MLS Cup playoffs.


RBNY vs CIN: Review for goal (offside) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Júnior Moreno (CIN) and awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR checked footage of the goal and identified that the shot had deflected into the net off Geoff Cameron (CIN), who was in an offside position when the ball hit him.

He recommended a Video Review, and having seen the footage for himself at the RRA screen, the referee agreed and disallowed the goal.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:17

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good use of the Video Review system to disallow a goal for offside, interfering with play.


MTL vs ORL: Review for penalty kick (in or out) – not given


What Happened: The referee awarded a direct freekick to CF Montréal for a foul by João Moutinho (ORL) on Djordje Mihailovic (MTL) that he perceived to be outside the penalty area.

However, when the VAR checked the footage, he saw that the contact was inside the penalty area and recommended a Video Review. After seeing the footage for himself at the RRA screen, the referee concurred and awarded a penalty kick.

On-field decision: Direct freekick.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 2:00.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a good use of the Video Review system to reach the correct outcome.


LA vs NSH: Review for goal (foul in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Chicharito (LA) and awarded by the on-field officials.

However, when the VAR checked the goal, he saw that the left foot of Julián Araujo (LA) had caught Hany Mukhtar (NSH) on the calf and scraped down his leg after Mukhtar had played the ball at the start of the APP.

The VAR formed the opinion that a clear and obvious error had been committed in the non-awarding of a freekick to Nashville and that the goal should not have been allowed to stand. He recommended a Video Review, and having seen the footage for himself at the RRA screen, the referee agreed and disallowed the goal.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul in APP.
Final decision after review: No goal – direct freekick to Nashville.
Length of review: 3:20.

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


ATX vs RSL: Review for penalty kick (handball) – not given


What Happened: A cross by Maikel Chang (RSL) was blocked in the Austin penalty area by defender Jhojan Valencia (ATX). The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

When the VAR checked footage of the incident, he saw that the ball had been blocked directly by the right arm of Valencia, which was away from his body, making him unnaturally bigger and creating a barrier for the ball.

After seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee concurred and awarded a penalty kick to Real Salt Lake.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:42.

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


LAFC vs ATX: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Diego Fagúndez (ATX) went down at the top of the Los Angeles FC penalty area under challenge from Sebastien Ibeagha (LAFC). The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

However, when the VAR checked footage of the situation, he saw that Ibeagha had stepped on the toe of Fagúndez and made no contact with the ball after Fagúndez had touched it past the defender.

He formed the opinion this was a foul, and the non-award of a penalty kick was a clear and obvious error. As such, the VAR recommended a Video Review, but after looking at the footage for himself at the RRA screen, the referee decided to retain his original decision not to award a penalty kick and play restarted with a drop ball to Los Angeles FC.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:30.

PRO’s Opinion: While there is contact on Fagúndez from Ibeagha, the referee felt that the contact had not been sufficiently impactful and the decision not to award a penalty was not clearly and obviously wrong. PRO feels this was a correct recommendation for Video Review, and a penalty kick should have been awarded.



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