,

The Definitive Angle: MLS Matchday 37

4 Min Read
Video Review quad screen

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

Matchday 37 overview
There were five Video Review during Matchday 37.


CLT vs MTL: Red card (DOGSO)


Outcome: After review, Charlotte #29 [Adilson Malanda] fouled Montréal #9 [Prince Owusu] outside the penalty area.

The final decision was a direct free kick [to CF Montréal]. The yellow card to Charlotte #29 for stopping a promising attack was rescinded, and a red card was issued for a tripping offense which denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

Length of Review: 2:25

PRO’s opinion: The referee awarded a direct free kick and issued a yellow card to Malanda (CLT) for stopping a promising attack after he was unsuccessful in playing the ball and tripped Owusu (MTL). The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that, with the speed of the ball, Owusu had the likelihood of control. Since all other denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity considerations were satisfied, the referee correctly rescinded the yellow card after video review and issued a red card.


RBNY vs NYC: No goal (offside)


Outcome: After review, New York City #11 [Julián Fernández] was in an offside position when the ball was passed to him by New York City #7 [Nicolás Fernández]. New York City #11 then interfered with play when he touched the ball prior to New York City #7 eventually scoring a goal.

The final decision was offside and an indirect free kick [to New York Red Bulls].

Length of Review: 3:07

PRO’s opinion: This was a very tight decision. The assistant referee delayed raising his flag until the ball was in the goal, and the referee disallowed the goal for the offside offense. The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that Tim Parker (RBNY) had his foot on the mow line, and Fernández (NYC) had his entire body in the dark shaded area and recommended a review for a goal. However, the referee maintained his on-field decision of no goal because he did not feel that there was enough evidence that the decision to disallow the goal for an offside offense was incorrect.


CHI vs CLB: No goal (offside)


Outcome: After review, Chicago #5 [Sam Rogers] was in an offside position when the free kick was taken by Chicago #10 [André Franco]. Chicago #5 then interfered with play when he scored a goal.

The final decision was offside and an indirect free kick [to Columbus Crew].

Length of Review: 2:09

PRO’s opinion: At the moment the ball was played to Rogers (CHI), he was in an offside position. The referee was correct to disallow the goal for the offside offense after video review.


POR vs DAL: Yellow card (DOGSO)


Outcome: After review, Portland #20 [Finn Surman] fouled Dallas #23 [Logan Farrington] inside the penalty area.

The final decision was a penalty kick [to FC Dallas] and a yellow card to Portland #20 for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity with an attempt to play the ball.

Length of Review: 2:26

PRO’s opinion: Surman (POR) charged Farrington (DAL) in the back and forced him to ground, and the referee awarded a penalty kick. As Farrington (DAL) had control of the ball, with only the goalkeeper in front of him, he was heading towards goal with a good angle, a yellow card was issued for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity while attempting to or challenging for the ball. The VAR analyzed the available angles and believed that the defender was not challenging for the ball and recommended an on-field review to issue a red card.

After video review, the referee maintained that this was a challenge for the ball because there was no cynical action from Surman to hold or push the attacker. It appeared that in the process of trying to get to the ball he committed a charging offense. While he does not attempt to play the ball with his leg, the overall action of Surman was considered as a challenge for the ball.


STL vs LAFC: No penalty kick


Outcome: After review, St Louis #2 [Devin Padelford] did not commit a punishable handball offense inside the penalty area.

The final decision was no penalty, and play was restarted with a drop ball.

Length of Review: 2:10

PRO’s opinion: The referee believed that the ball had struck Padelford’s (STL) left arm after Ryan Porteous (LAFC) had crossed the ball inside the penalty area. The VAR analyzed the available angles and determined that the ball struck the defender’s right arm, which was tucked in tight to his body, and not making it unnaturally bigger. The referee was correct to rescind the penalty kick after video review.


Please note: These videos do not contain audio. They are a recording of the screen as viewed by the VAR in real-time.