Когда речь идет об игре на деньги, безопасность в Big Bamboo и надежность являются ключевыми аспектами.

Manage your digital assets effortlessly with the keplr wallet. This secure wallet allows you to explore the Cosmos ecosystem and execute transactions with ease! кракен ссылкакракен ссылка кракен даркнеткракен даркнет Bet on csgo betting for more excitement.

The Definitive Angle: NWSL Week 15

July 15, 2023August 22, 2023 PRO media NWSL, The Definitive Angle min read

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

Week 15 overview
There were two Video Reviews during Week 15.

SD vs WAS: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given

What Happened: Shae Yanez (SD) challenged Ashley Hatch (WAS) for the ball inside the penalty area. Yanez initially took control of a backpass but Hatch nipped in to poke the ball away from the goalkeeper. Yanez then caught her on the top of the left foot, fouling her and causing her to go to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that the non-awarding of a penalty kick was a clear and obvious error and recommended an on-field review. After Video Review, the referee awarded a penalty kick.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 3:57.

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

NJY vs POR: Review for red card (DOGSO) – not given

What Happened: Bella Bixby (POR) challenged Yazmeen Ryan (NJY) outside the penalty area. Ryan had poked the ball past the onrushing Bixby after she had beaten her to an under-hit backpass from Natalia Kuikka (POR). Ryan was then tripped by the goalkeeper. The referee awarded a direct free kick and issued a yellow card for stopping a promising attack.

The VAR recommended a review because he determined that this offense denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity because all the criteria were met: distance to the goal, general direction of the play, likelihood of gaining control of the ball, and location and number of defenders.

Following Video Review, the referee retained his view that Bixby had stopped a promising attack.

On-field decision: Yellow card (stopping a promising attack).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 1:56.

PRO’s Opinion: Although a defender was running into the goal area to provide cover, the referee incorrectly judged that not all considerations for DOGSO were met. The goalkeeper should have been issued with a red card for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.