Tuesday, July 23, 2024
Присоединяйтесь к вавада казино и наслаждайтесь азартными играми. Удобный вход, быстрая регистрация и множество бонусов ждут вас. Используйте промокоды для максимальных выигрышей. В вавада казино вас ждут лучшие игры и щедрые бонусы. Регистрация проста, зеркала обеспечат удобный вход, а промокоды помогут увеличить ваши шансы на выигрыш. Immediate Venture Canadian Sports has seen a lot of athletes using Steroids Canada over the years. Ben Johnson is one that comes to mind who had his Gold medal taken away at the Olympics.
FeaturedThe Definitive Angle

The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 36

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

Week 36 overview
There were six Video Reviews during Week 36.


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


What happened: Goalkeeper Luka Gavran (TOR) challenged Kamil Józwiak (CLT) for a loose ball inside the penalty area, and Józwiak went to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR determined that Gavran did not play the ball with his hands and made contact on the left leg of Józwiak, which prevented him from being able to continue with the ball. An on-field review was recommended, and 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: 2:55.

PRO’s opinion: Józwiak got to the ball first, and then Gavran made contact with his opponent. This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


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


What happened: A goal was scored by Karol Swiderski (CLT) and awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that when the ball was last touched by a teammate, Brandt Bronico (CLT) was in an offside position. He then interfered with play when he touched the ball to Swiderski. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, the goal was disallowed.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: Offside.
Final decision after review: No goal.
Length of review: 1:45.

PRO’s opinion: This was a good use of the Video Review system to disallow a goal for offside, interfering with play.


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


What happened: A cross from Luciano Acosta (CIN) was blocked by the arm of Andrés Reyes (RBNY). The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue. New York Red Bulls then gained control of the ball and started a counterattack that led to a goal being scored by Elias Manoel (RBNY), which was awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR determined that Reyes had his arm outside his body and used his arm to create a barrier for the ball. He blocked the path of the ball and prevented it from continuing through to the middle of the penalty area.

An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, the referee disallowed the goal to New York Red Bulls and awarded a penalty kick to FC Cincinnati for the handball offense.

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

PRO’s opinion: Although it would have been preferable for the VAR to have asked the referee to stop the match for the review prior to the New York Red Bulls goal, there was not enough time between the handball and the goal being scored for this to happen. The final outcome is correct.


PHI vs ATL: Review for penalty kick (handball) – not given


What happened: A corner from Brooks Lennon (ATL) struck the elbow of Julián Carranza (PHI), who was jumping to head the ball clear. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time because he had players in his line of vision and allowed play to continue.

The play was then stopped for a tripping offense by Lennon on Carranza, and the referee issued a yellow card to Lennon for stopping a promising attack.

The VAR determined that Carranza had made his body unnaturally bigger and created a barrier for the ball. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, the referee awarded a penalty kick for the handball offense and rescinded the yellow card to Lennon, per the Laws of the Game, as it was issued for a tactical foul.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 3:05.

PRO’s opinion: Carranza’s elbow was high and outstretched. This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.


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


What happened: Joshua Yaro (STL) challenged Brian White (VAN) for the ball inside the penalty area, and White went to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR analyzed the available angles, determined that Yaro had tripped White, and recommended an on-field review. After Video Review, the referee maintained his original decision.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: No change.
Length of review: 2:55.

PRO’s opinion: Yaro made contact with the ball, and then there was contact between his right leg and the left foot of White. However, Yaro did not challenge in a reckless manner, and the contact after blocking the ball was normal. The decision to allow play to continue did not rise to the level of a clear and obvious error, and the referee was correct to stay with his original decision.


VAN vs STL: Review for goal (offside) – not given


What happened: A goal was scored by Ryan Gauld (VAN) and awarded by the on-field officials.

The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that when the ball was touched by Brian White (VAN), Gauld was in an offside position. He then interfered with play when he played the ball. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, the referee disallowed the goal and restarted play with an indirect free kick.

On-field decision: Goal.
Type of review: Offside.
Final decision after review: Offside.
Length of review: 2:30.

PRO’s opinion: All players were in an onside position when the ball was first played into the penalty area; however, when White touched the ball, before it rebounded off the body of Joshua Yaro (STL), Gauld was in an offside position. This was another good use of the Video Review system to disallow a goal for offside, interfering with play.



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