Monday, March 4, 2024
Stay in control of your digital finances with ledger live customizable portfolio views, tailoring your dashboard to fit your investment strategy. Вход на сайт казино черезВавада зеркало. Вы попадете на официальный сайт Vavada casino, где можно регистрироваться. Официальный сайт казино вавада и рабочее зеркало по ссылке. Бонусы за регистрацию 100 FS.
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 3

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

Week 3 overview
There were six Video Review during Week 3.


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


What Happened: The referee awarded a penalty kick to Charlotte FC for a foul by Brooks Lennon (ATL) on Kamil Józwiak (CLT). Lennon moved toward Józwiak to block a shot on goal and turned his back, anticipating the ball would hit his body. Józwiak attempted to shoot but missed the ball, and the pair came together.

In real-time, the referee believed Lennon had landed on the knee of Józwiak. However, when the VAR checked the footage, he saw that the collision resulted from their respective natural movements and recommended a Video Review. After seeing the footage at the RRA screen, the referee agreed with the VAR and rescinded the penalty.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty – dropball.
Length of review: 2:47.

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


TOR vs CLB: Review for goal (offside) – given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Jimmy Medranda (CLB), but it was disallowed by the on-field officials for offside. When the ball was passed to Medranda by Aidan Morris (CLB), his teammate, Lucas Zelarayán (CLB), was in an offside position but moving away from the pass. When the VAR checked footage of the goal, he saw that Medranda was in an onside position when the ball was played forward and that Zelarayán had not interfered.

This was a good goal, and the VAR recommended a Video Review. After seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee awarded a goal to Columbus Crew.

On-field decision: Offside.
Type of review: Goal – no offside.
Final decision after review: Goal.
Length of review: 1:55.

PRO’s Opinion: The attacker that was in an offside position did not interfere with play or an opponent. This was a very good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


DC vs ORL: Review for penalty kick (handball) – given


What Happened: The referee awarded a penalty kick to D.C. United for what he perceived in real-time to be a handball offense committed by Wilder Cartagena (ORL).

A shot by Christian Benteke (DC) was blocked by the legs of Robin Jansson (ORL), who was standing very close to Cartagena, and the ball rebounded directly into the arm of Cartagena.

When the VAR checked footage of the incident, he saw that the ball had been blocked by the left arm of Cartagena. However, the arm was down to his side and in a natural position when the ball rebounded off a teammate’s leg into it from a close distance. The awarding of a penalty was a clear and obvious error, and an on-field review was recommended.

After looking at the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee concurred, rescinded the penalty, and restarted play with a dropball to the Orlando City goalkeeper, Pedro Gallese.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty – dropball.
Length of review: 2:47.

PRO’s Opinion: The arm was naturally positioned and not making the body bigger when the ball hit it. This was not a handball offense and a correct use of the Video Review system.


CIN vs SEA: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


What Happened: The referee awarded a direct freekick to Seattle Sounders, having deemed that Nick Hagglund (CIN) had fouled Raúl Ruidíaz (SEA). The referee issued a yellow card to Hagglund for stopping a promising attack rather than denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity due to the location of FC Cincinnati defender Matt Miazga.

However, when the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he believed that Miazga was too far away to have intervened, and as such, he recommended a Video Review for a DOGSO red card to be issued. Having looked at the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed and changed his yellow card decision to red.

On-field decision: Yellow card (stopping a promising attack).
Type of review: Red card (denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 2:05.

PRO’s Opinion: Ruidíaz was headed in direction of goal, at a close distance, with control of the ball and the defender; Miazga was too far wide to have been able to intervene. This was an effective use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


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


What Happened: A goal was scored by Yeimar (SEA) and awarded by the on-field match officials. Prior to the goal, there was a coming together between Yeimar and Yerson Mosquera (CIN) on the edge of the penalty area, but the incident occurred away from the ball, and the referee did not have the opportunity to make a judgment on the contact.

During his check of the goal, the VAR identified that Yeimar made contact with Mosquera (CIN) on the head with his hand as he attempted to create space to attack the cross from the right wing. He recommended a Video Review, and after looking at the images for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed. He disallowed the goal, issued a yellow card to Yeimar, and restarted the game with a direct freekick for FC Cincinnati.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – foul in APP.
Final decision after review: No goal – direct freekick and yellow card to Yeimar.
Length of review: 1:35.

PRO’s Opinion: The foul contact was clear and has a direct impact on the scoring of the goal. This was a foul in the APP. This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


RSL vs ATX: Review for red card (serious foul play) – given


What Happened: The referee issued a red card to Damir Kreilach (RSL) for a foul on Daniel Pereira (ATX). Kreilach went into the tackle with his leg extended and studs exposed. He did not play the ball with his legs or make contact with Pereira using his studs. The final contact was low, and the amount of force used was not excessive; however, seeing the straight leg, studs exposed and the fact that Kreilach continued through Pereira, a red card was issued for serious foul play.

The VAR determined that issuing the red card was a clear and obvious error and recommended an on-field review for no red card. Following Video Review, the referee rescinded the red card and issued a yellow card for the reckless nature of the tackle.

On-field decision: Red card (serious foul play).
Type of review: Yellow card (reckless challenge).
Final decision after review: Yellow card.
Length of review: 2:30.

PRO’s Opinion: The low point of contact and lack of excessive force made this a reckless challenge. This was a good use of the Video Review system to overturn 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.

Experience the excitement with bets not on GamStop, where the action is limitless and the opportunities are vast. Bet on a variety of sports and enjoy an enhanced betting journey.

online pokies real money