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 9

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

Week 9 overview
There were four Video Reviews during Week 9.


CLT vs CLB: Review for goal (offside) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Aidan Morris (CLB) and awarded by the on-field officials.

When the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he determined that Morris was in an offside position when Jacen Russell-Rowe (CLB) played the ball through to him to score.

He, therefore, recommended a Video Review for offside. After seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed, disallowed the goal and restarted with an indirect free kick for Charlotte FC.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:05.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a close decision, but Morris’ foot can be seen closer to the goal line than the second to last Charlotte defender who was very close to him. This was a good use of the Video Review system to disallow a goal for offside, interfering with play.


NE vs SKC: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


What Happened: The referee awarded a yellow card, and subsequent red card for receiving two yellow cards in the same match, to Andreu Fontàs (SKC) for stopping a promising attack after he fouled Giacomo Vrioni (NE) outside the Sporting Kansas City penalty area.

When the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he saw Vrioni had control of the ball and was moving directly toward the goal when the foul occurred. The VAR determined that defender Dany Rosero (SKC) was too far away to have intervened, so 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) – second yellow.
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 3:55.

PRO’s Opinion: Although the outcome for Fontás remained the same, with the difference only being a sendoff for a direct red card versus a second yellow card, the disciplinary sanctions post game are different. The result of the Video Review was the correct outcome.


NYC vs DAL: Review for goal (offside) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by Gabriel Pereira (NYC) and awarded by the on-field officials.

When the VAR checked the footage, he determined that Pereira was in an offside position when James Sands (NYC) played the ball wide to him before he cut inside to score.

He, therefore, recommended a Video Review for offside. After seeing the footage for himself at the RRA, the referee agreed, disallowed the goal, and restarted with an indirect free kick for FC Dallas.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:10.

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


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


What Happened: A free kick from the left was delivered into the LA Galaxy penalty area. Gyasi Zardes (ATX) and Eriq Zavaleta (LA) challenged for the ball at the far post, and both players were holding each other’s jerseys while the ball was in the air. The referee did not identify any offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that there was more of an impact from the hold by Zavaleta, particularly as Zardes jumped for the ball, and he recommended an on-field review.

After looking at the footage at the RRA, the referee decided that both players were holding their opponent’s jersey, that there was no clear foul evident and he maintained his original decision of no penalty.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 1:50.

PRO’s Opinion: The recommendation for review was unnecessary as both players were holding with no clear action by one player before the other and the referee was correct to stay with his original decision not to award a penalty.



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