Thursday, April 25, 2024
Stay in control of your digital finances with ledger live customizable portfolio views, tailoring your dashboard to fit your investment strategy. Зарегистрируйтесь в казино Вавада зеркало сегодня и получите доступ к играм. Вас ждет приветственный бонус и множество развлечений! В казино вавада регистрация проста, а доступ через зеркало обеспечивает непрерывный вход. Начните с щедрого бонуса для новичков!
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 25

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

Week 25 overview
There were four Video Reviews during Week 25.


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


What Happened: Kyle Duncan (RBNY) challenged Santiago Arias (CIN) for the ball in the penalty area. Arias got a touch on the ball ahead of Duncan, who had reached for the ball, but did not play it. Instead, he put his leg into the leg of Arias and made contact at the knee, which tripped him. The referee did not see the contact in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and was able to identify that Duncan did not play the ball and that he moved his leg into the leg of Arias and fouled him. He recommended an on-field review, and 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: 2:10.

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


NSH vs PHI: Review for penalty kick (handball) – given


What Happened: Daniel Lovitz (NSH) delivered the ball into the penalty area from a corner and Jack McGlynn (PHI) attempted to head the ball but missed, and the ball struck his arm. The referee awarded a penalty kick for a handball offense.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that the arm of McGlynn was close to his body and did not make his body unnaturally bigger. There was no additional movement of the arm to the ball, so the VAR recommended an on-field review, and after Video Review, the referee rescinded the penalty kick.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty.
Length of review: 2:15.

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


SJ vs SEA: Review for penalty kick (handball) – not given


What Happened: Reed Baker-Whiting (SEA) delivered the ball into the penalty area from the left. Without being challenged, Rodrigues (SJ) attempted to control the ball with his thigh. The ball came off his legs and up into his arm. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that Rodrigues’ arms were in an unnatural position and had made his body unnaturally bigger and 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: 4:00.

PRO’s Opinion: The referee was correct in maintaining his original decision not to award a penalty. While Rodrigues’ arms were away from his body, they were in a justifiable position for what he was attempting to do. There was no additional movement to the ball, and his arm was not in this position to create a barrier.


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


What Happened: Tristan Blackmon (VAN) challenged Will Bruin (ATX) as he entered the penalty area. Bruin was in control of the ball and about to enter the penalty area ahead of Blackmon, who was trailing behind. The defender reached out and held the body of Bruin, forcing him to go to ground. The referee awarded a direct free kick as the holding offense did not continue into the penalty area and issued a yellow card for SPA.

The VAR analyzed the available angles, determined that the next touch would be a shot on goal, and recommended an on-field review for DOGSO. After Video Review, the referee maintained his original decision of a direct free kick and yellow card.

On-field decision: Yellow card (stopping a promising attack).
Type of review: Red card (DOGSO).
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:30.

PRO’s Opinion: The referee was correct in maintaining his original decision. It was a difficult angle, and while Bruin may have had a goal-scoring opportunity, it was not an obvious scoring opportunity from that angle. Any attempt to become more central and improve the angle would then see the second defender come into play. The preferred outcome was achieved in this instance, which was a yellow card for SPA.



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