Thursday, May 23, 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: NWSL Week 24

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

Week 24 overview
There were three Video Reviews during Week 24.

KC vs CHI: Review for goal (offside) – given

What happened: A goal was scored by Debinha (KC) but disallowed by the on-field officials for offside after a delayed flag and whistle.

The VAR determined that Debinha was in an onside position when Alex Loera (KC) played the ball to her. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, a goal was awarded to Kansas City Current.

On-field decision: Offside.
Type of review: Goal.
Final decision after review: Goal.
Length of review: 3:05.

PRO’s opinion: This was a good example of a delayed flag and whistle and a good use of the Video Review system to reach the correct outcome.

KC vs CHI: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – given

What happened: Michelle Cooper (KC) went to ground inside the penalty area while under pressure from Julia Bianchi (CHI) as she attempted to get on the end of a left-wing cross from Mimmi Larsson (KC). The referee awarded a penalty kick.

The VAR determined that Bianchi touched Cooper without any pushing motion and that Cooper went to ground in an attempt to reach the cross with her right foot and not because the defender fouled her. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, the referee rescinded the penalty kick, and play restarted with a drop ball.

On-field decision: Penalty kick.
Type of review: No penalty.
Final decision after review: No penalty.
Length of review: 2:10

PRO’s opinion: Cooper went to ground trying to play the ball and not because of the slight contact from the defender. This contact didn’t rise to the level of offense and was not a foul. This was a good use of the Video Review system to overturn a clear and obvious error.

LOU vs ORL: Review for penalty kick (foul challenge) – not given

What happened: Taylor Aylmer (LOU) challenged Marta (ORL) for the ball inside the penalty area, and Marta went to ground. The referee did not identify an offense in real-time and allowed play to continue.

The VAR determined that there was foul contact from Aylmer’s foot on the foot of Marta as the defender attempted to clear the ball. An on-field review was recommended, and after Video Review, a penalty kick was awarded.

On-field decision: Play on.
Type of review: Penalty kick.
Final decision after review: Penalty.
Length of review: 3:27 (includes a 50-second technical delay).

PRO’s opinion: Marta was in the process of planting her left foot to shield the ball from Aylmer as the defender kicked through it and tripped her. This was a foul by Aylmer and a 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.

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