,

The Definitive Angle: MLS Matchday 17

by

PRO Media
2 Min Read
Video Review quad screen

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

Matchday 17 overview
There were three Video Reviews during Matchday 17.

CLT vs ATL: Yellow card (reckless challenge)

Outcome: After review, Atlanta #28 [Will Reilly] did not commit a serious foul play offense on Charlotte #16 [Pep Biel].

The final decision was a yellow card to Atlanta #28 for a reckless challenge.

Length of Review: 5:20

PRO’s opinion: Reilly (ATL) left his feet to lunge into the tackle, making full contact with his studs into Biel’s (CLT) lower calf and Achilles area. Although he bent his leg upon making contact, the manner and point of contact of this challenge endangered the safety of his opponent, and the VAR was correct to recommend a review. These incidents are often subjective, and the referee saw that Reilly bent his leg and, due to the reduced force, he issued a yellow card for a reckless challenge.

CLB vs NYC: Penalty kick

Outcome: After review, New York City #13 [Thiago Martins] committed a punishable handball offense inside the penalty area.

The final decision was a penalty kick [to Columbus Crew].

Length of Review: 2:27

PRO’s opinion: Martins (NYC) used his arm to propel a loose ball away at the top of the penalty area. The referee correctly identified the handball offense but awarded a direct free kick, thinking the contact with the ball happened outside the penalty area. The VAR saw that the offense occurred just inside the penalty area, and the referee was correct to award a penalty kick after video review.

COL vs SD: No penalty

Outcome: After review, Colorado #4 [Reggie Cannon] did not foul San Diego #6 [Jeppe Tverskov] inside the penalty area.

The final decision was no penalty.

Length of Review: 2:38

PRO’s opinion: This is another subjective incident. Cannon (COL) clearly had hold of Tverskov (SD), which affected his ability to challenge for the ball. Some may see the contact from Tverskov as an effort to release himself from the hold; others will also interpret it as a hold. On this occasion, the referee believed both players were guilty of holding each other. The VAR was correct to recommend a review, and the referee maintained his original decision 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.