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 17

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

Week 17 overview
There were nine Video Reviews during Week 17.


NYC vs NE: Review for red card (serious foul play) – given


What Happened: Braian Cufré (NYC) challenged DeJuan Jones (NE) for the ball. Cufré played the ball and then made glancing contact on Jones’ leg, which finished on the top of the foot. The referee saw strong contact on the leg with the studs and issued a red card for serious foul play.

The VAR analyzed the available angles, determined that the contact was on the top of the foot, was not excessive and not serious foul play.

During the Video Review, the referee was shown an angle from between the two players. The referee asked for an additional wider angle that appeared to show more significant contact on the leg and he decided to maintain his original decision of a red card.

On-field decision: Red card (serious foul play).
Type of review: Yellow card (reckless challenge).
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:58.

PRO’s Opinion: There was no contact to the knee and any contact to the shin was glancing and not impactful. It was not serious foul play.


MIA vs DC: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given


What Happened: Kamal Miller (MIA) challenged Christian Benteke (DC) for the ball. He did not play the ball but tackled Benteke in a careless manner, tripping him. Benteke had control of the ball, was central, just outside the penalty area with only the goalkeeper in front. The referee issued a yellow card for stopping a promising attack.

The VAR analyzed the available angles, determined that this offense denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and recommended an on-field review. Following Video Review, the referee rescinded the yellow card and issued a red card to Miller for DOGSO.

On-field decision: Yellow card (SPA).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: Red card.
Length of review: 1:45.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a good use of the Video Review system to reach the correct outcome.


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


What Happened: Facundo Torres (ORL) served the ball into the penalty area from a direct free kick. Before the ball arrived, Sean Nealis (RBNY) held the jersey of Robin Jansson (ORL), pulled him to the ground and then headed the ball. The holding was hidden from the referee’s view and play continued.

The VAR determined the referee made a clear and obvious error in not awarding a penalty and recommended an on-field review. Following Video Review, the referee awarded a penalty kick and issued a yellow card to Nealis for the deliberate holding offense.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:45.

PRO’s Opinion: Nealis had held and pulled Jansson down, preventing him from being able to play the ball and had an impact on the movement of Jansson. This was a good use of the Video Review to award a penalty for a foul that was out of the referee’s view.


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


What Happened: A goal was scored by Justin Meram (CLT) and awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that at the moment the ball was played by a teammate, Meram’s knee and shoulder was ahead of the second-to-last opponent. He recommended an on-field review.

After Video Review, the referee disallowed the goal and restarted the match with an indirect free kick for the offside offense in the APP.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: No goal – offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 2:00.

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


STL vs HOU: Review for red card (violent conduct) – given


What Happened: A mass confrontation started after a challenge by Njabulo Blom (STL) on Adalberto Carrasquilla (HOU) after a direct free kick had been awarded. During the confrontation, Iván Franco (HOU) grabbed Nicholas Gioacchini (STL) and pulled him to the ground. The referee issued a red card to Franco for violent conduct.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that the contact was across the chest and not in the neck of Gioacchini. It was also determined that excessive force was not used.

The VAR recommended an on-field review, and after Video Review, the referee rescinded the red card and issued a yellow card to Franco for lack of respect for the game.

On-field decision: Red card (violent conduct).
Type of review: Yellow card (lack of respect for the game).
Final decision after review: Yellow card.
Length of review: 2:50.

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


STL vs HOU: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Daniel Steres (HOU) challenged Aziel Jackson (STL) inside the penalty area. Steres did not play the ball and charged Jackson in the back, forcing him to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR recommended an on-field review because the contact was not shoulder-to-shoulder but was in the back. After Video Review, the referee awarded a penalty kick.

On-field decision: Goal kick.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:30.

PRO’s Opinion: Steres was late to the tackle and charged Jackson in the back. This was a clear foul and a good use of the Video Review system.


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


What Happened: Sergio Córdova (VAN) had just tackled Robert Castellanos (SKC) when Castellanos held Córdova and prevented him from attacking the goal. The referee issued a yellow card to Castellanos for stopping a promising attack.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined with the position of Córdova, the position of the goalkeeper and the distance from the action of the nearest Sporting Kansas City defender, that Castellanos had denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and recommended an on-field review.

After Video Review, the referee maintained his original decision of a direct free kick and a yellow card for SPA.

On-field decision: Yellow card (SPA).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:45.

PRO’s Opinion: While this foul occurred at some distance from goal, there were no other defenders in the path of Córdova and the closest defender had a lot of ground to cover to be able to defend. Códova had control of the ball and with the goalkeeper out of position would have had a clear opportunity to score. PRO would have preferred a red card for DOGSO to be issued.


VAN vs SKC: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given


What Happened: Déiber Caicedo (VAN) was in control of the ball when he was challenged by Robert Voloder (SKC) inside the penalty area. Voloder tackled for the ball but did not play it; instead, he made contact on the leg of Caicedo with his thigh. The referee thought that Voloder had played the ball and awarded a corner kick.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that Caicedo had touched the ball, not Voloder, and recommended an on-field review. After Video Review, the referee awarded a penalty kick.

On-field decision: Corner kick.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 1:55.

PRO’s Opinion: This was a clear foul and a correctly awarded penalty after Video Review.


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


What Happened: Rodrigues (SJ) challenged Michael Barrios (COL) for the ball in the penalty area. He did not play the ball but made contact on the foot of Barrios. The referee did not see any contact and issued a yellow card to Barrios for simulation.

The VAR saw clear and impactful contact on the foot of Barrios by Rodrigues and recommended an on-field review. Following Video Review, the referee rescinded the yellow card for simulation and awarded a penalty kick for the tripping offense.

On-field decision: Yellow card (simulation).
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty and yellow card rescinded.
Length of review: 2:13.

PRO’s Opinion: This contact had an impact and tripped Barrios. This was a very good use of the Video Review system to rectify 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