The Definitive Angle: MLS Week 24
The Definitive Angle is PRO’s analysis of the week’s Video Review use in MLS.
Week 24 overview
There were six Video Reviews during Week 24.
CLT vs MIA: Goal
What happened: After review, Charlotte #33 [Patrick Agyemang] did not foul Miami #6 [Tomás Avilés] prior to scoring a goal.
The final decision was a goal [to Charlotte].
Length of review: 4:20
PRO’s opinion: The referee was correct to allow the goal scored by Agyemang (CLT) to stand. While Agyemang did hold Avilés’ (MIA) jersey as they battled for possession, it did not have a clear impact on Avilés’ movement. The contact between the two players was normal contact when trying to establish position, and there was no clear pushing offense that reached the threshold of a clear and obvious error.
CLB vs NSH: Attacker handball (no goal)
What happened: Nashville #11 [Tyler Boyd] committed an attacker handball offense in the process of scoring a goal.
The final decision was that the goal [for Nashville] was disallowed. Play restarted with a direct free kick [to Columbus Crew].
Length of review: 3:12
PRO’s opinion: The VAR determined that after Boyd headed the ball, the ball struck his hand prior to entering the goal. The referee was correct to disallow the goal for attacker handball. This was a good and efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.
The offense does not require the attacker to make his body bigger or commit a deliberate handball. It is an offense if the ball touches the arm of an attacker, and then he immediately scores a goal, even if that touch is accidental.
NYC vs MTL: Goal
What happened: After review, New York #16 [Alonso Martínez] was onside when the ball was passed to him by New York #17 [Hannes Wolf] before he scored a goal.
The final decision was goal [to New York City].
Length of Review: 2:20
PRO’s opinion: After Martínez (NYC) scored, the assistant referee raised the flag for an offside offense; however, Corbo (MTL) was slightly ahead of him and he was onside when the ball was last played by his teammate, Wolf (NYC). After video review, the referee awarded a goal. This was a good use of the Video Review system to overturn a clear and obvious error.
What happened: After review, Chicago #34 [Chris Brady] fouled Philadelphia #26 [Nathan Harriel] inside the penalty area.
The final decision was penalty [to Philadelphia Union] and yellow card to Chicago #34 for stopping a promising attack.
Length of Review: 4:01
PRO’s opinion: As Harriel (PHI) challenged Brady (CHI), the goalkeeper’s momentum was about to carry him outside the penalty area with the ball in his hands. He dropped the ball, and Harriel gained control before Brady used both hands to hold him back. This was a foul and a clear penalty; the yellow card was correct because there was a covering defender, and the foul occurred close to the goal line, which the opportunity for a clear shot on goal difficult to execute. This was a good use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.
What happened: After review, Chicago #7 [Maren Haile-Selassie] was in an offside position in the buildup to the goal by Chicago #8 [Chris Mueller]. Chicago #7 then interfered with play when he touched the ball.
The final decision was offside and an indirect free kick [to Philadelphia Union].
Length of Review: 3:35
PRO’s opinion: The referee was correct to disallow the goal scored by Mueller (CHI) because Haile-Selassie (CHI) was in an offside position when the ball was last played by his teammate, prior to the goal being scored. This was a good use of the Video Review system to disallow a goal for an offside situation.
LA vs LAFC: Penalty kick
What happened: After review, Los Angeles Galaxy #3 [Julián Aude] fouled LAFC #20 [Eduard Atuesta] inside the penalty area.
The final decision was penalty [to Los Angeles Football Club].
Length of Review: 1:48
PRO’s opinion: Aude (LA) made contact on the foot and leg of Atuesta (LAFC) and tripped him as he attempted to play the ball. The contact forced Atuesta to the ground. The referee did not see clear impact from the contact and allowed play to continue. This was a good, efficient use of the Video Review system to rectify a clear and obvious error.
Please note: These videos do not contain audio. They are a recording of the screen as viewed by the VAR in real-time.