Saturday, May 18, 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.
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 10

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

Week 10 overview
There were five Video Reviews during Week 10.


NSH vs ATL: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Dax McCarty (NSH) challenged Matheus Rossetto (ATL) for the ball in the penalty area and Rossetto, who was shielding the ball from McCarty, went to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

When the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he saw Rossetto had position on McCarty when he made contact with his knee/thigh into the upper leg of Rossetto without playing the ball.

After an efficient check, the VAR recommended a Video Review, and the referee awarded a penalty kick to Atlanta United.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:28.

PRO’s Opinion: This was an efficient and effective use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error. The time from the incident to the second referee signal after the Video Review was considerably below the average, due to a very efficient use of speeds and angles in the evaluation process.


DC vs CLT: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Derrick Jones (CLT) challenged Taxiarchis Fountas (DC) for the ball in the penalty area. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined in his attempt to play the ball, Jones’ left foot had instead clipped the foot of Fountas, which was in the air, and caused him to go to ground.

The VAR recommended an on-field review. The referee agreed and awarded the penalty kick to D.C. United.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:25.

PRO’s Opinion: While the contact was not strong it was still impactful. Since Fountas’ foot was off the ground, the contact prevented him from being able to put his foot down and maintain his balance. This was another efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


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


What Happened: Andrew Farrell (NE) challenged Luciano Acosta (CIN) for the ball in the penalty area, and Acosta went to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and recommended an on-field review for a penalty kick because he determined that Farrell made contact with Acosta’s leg and not the ball.

The referee looked at several angles and decided that the amount of contact was insufficient to award a penalty and kept his original decision.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 3:00.

PRO’s Opinion: Farrell’s contact caused Acosta to fall. Although the referee felt that the contact did not rise to the level of a clear foul, PRO would prefer that a penalty be awarded.


ORL vs LA: Review for goal (handball in APP) – not given


What Happened: A goal was scored by César Araújo (ORL) and awarded by the on-field match officials.

When the VAR checked the footage of the incident, he saw that Julián Aude (LA) and Facundo Torres (ORL) challenged for a left-wing cross by Iván Angulo (ORL) prior to the goal. The contact between the players was normal; however, Torres raised his arms above his shoulders and touched the ball with his hands before it went to Araújo, who scored.

The VAR determined that a handball offense had been committed and that there was no foul committed by Aude leading to this handball, so he recommended an on-field review. After Video Review, the referee disallowed the goal and restarted play with a direct free kick.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – handball.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 1:32.

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


CHI vs RBNY: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Rafael Czichos (CHI) reached for the ball in the penalty area and did not make contact with it; instead, he made a small amount of contact on the right knee of Elias Manoel (RBNY). The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that Czichos’ contact had caused Manoel to go to ground. He felt the error of not awarding a penalty was clear and obvious, and he recommended an on-field review.

After Video Review, the referee 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: 2:50.

PRO’s Opinion: This was an unnecessary intervention by the VAR because while there was glancing contact on the knee, this had no impact and did not cause Manoel to fall. This did not meet the high threshold for a clear and obvious error, and the referee was correct to maintain his original decision.



1Win Casino'daki slot makinelerinde şansınızı denemeye hazır mısınız? Şanslı bir kazanan olun ve sadece birkaç tıklamayla hesabınıza gerçek para aktarın.

Interested in gambling sites not based in the UK? These non UK based gambling sites bring exclusive games and offers. Dive into the action now!

online pokies real money