It will also kind of happen when a scored goal is initially called off for a non-existent foul or offside that is later ruled good with VAR.
That can't happen with a foul. Once the whistle is blown, it's blown. Offside is only marginally different. MLS ARs are instructed not to do anything differently. But CRs will delay the whistle if a goal seems imminent when the flag goes up. That's key. The only reviewable situation with offside that can lead to a goal being awarded is when the flag goes up and the whisfle is blown AFTER the ball goes in the net. At that point, either the referee says he's awarded the goal and the attacker had to be clearly and obviously offside to affirm the flag OR the referee says "no goal" based on the flag and the attacker had to be clearly and obviously onside to award the goal. I think standard practice is going to be the former, however.
In the hour long VAR video MLS put out they showed a situation where a goal could have been awarded when a foul was called. It was Seattle @ FC Dallas when the ref called Roman Torres for a foul. Hercules Gomez scored very quickly after the "foul" but it was waved off because of the foul. In the MLS VAR video they said that the goal would be allowed in that situation. Rare, but it could happen. Sometimes fouls are called with assistance by the AR and take longer for the ref to blow a whistle. In situations where the ball goes in the net a ref may get advice from an AR before awarding the goal based on them seeing something. Once this happens, the CR would be consulting with their AR and the VAR. AR may suggest a foul. Without VAR, this could result in no goal. With VAR, the VAR can now look at the angles and tell the CR that it appears there is no foul.
That's the scenario I had in mind, where the foul was almost simultaneous with the shot. Specifically I'm thinking off a set piece where the foul occurs as the corner/free kick comes into the box and is knocked home but waved off due to the foul.
I know if i am the official and I watch just the first part hand on mouth then I am RED CARD, but if he watches the whole sittuation like we all did then he has to know they are hourseplaying. I would think Futbol scenes says bring KAKA over and say look my friend your lucky i saw the whole part because my initial reaction was send you off. I will let the league to decided if they want to send nasty gram.
anyone see the NE vs Van review on the SFP/VC... and the pk/noPK Can they come back and send off the player after the match has restarted??
You're suggesting he ignores what he sees on video (and what the AR seemingly saw live, if you watch his reaction) with the understanding that he is passing the buck to the league? What purpose does that serve? I thought Gonzalez did a great job communicating by saying "my hands are tied." They were. Kaka committed violent conduct by any measure we've ever been taught. If Colin turns around and that's not Kaka, what happens? If we condone it in this match using the "common sense" standard, what happens in the next match where we see something similar on review? We have to punish the act, particularly when we have video specifically to get violent conduct right. This may very well be an example of the parts of VR that fans and players don't want, but it's here. Kaka can horseplay with Colin all he wants on their own time. You don't want to be sent off for violent conduct, then don't grab a person's head and face from behind with both hands and pull him back. Most players seem to be able to handle doing that--even to their friends--for 90 minutes. With all that said, I fully expect the IPC to find a way to overturn this. I just hope that, when they do, there is some sort of statement from PRO or MLS saying Gonzalez did what he was supposed to do. I'm not holding my breath, though.
We mentioned the PK/non-PK above. It seems very obvious that this is the first mistake using VR. Not sure how that gets reviewed, the restart gets moved, but it's not a penalty. The foul clearly occurred inside the area. What is the SFP/VC review/incident from that match? I haven't seen or heard anything about that. But everything I've read and been told says VC can be punished once it's brought to the referee's attention, just like with an AR, even if play has been restarted (you just can't then go back and base a restart on the VC).
Doug Marshak put together a nice view on this weekend's VAR incidents for Fifty Five One today: http://fiftyfive.one/2017/08/var-wild-saturday-mls-referees/
Apparently this is the incident that OMR is talking about: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...ewed-possible-serious-foul-play?autoplay=true It looks red to me, but there's only one replay shown so it's hard to say it's clear and obvious. I imagine Elfath had a better angle, but I do wonder how we get the result of no misconduct there. It sounds like this and the non-penalty would be good incidents for PRO to go over in the PotW. As VR evolves and becomes the new reality, it's useful not only to know what worked (last week) but what didn't work--if it didn't--and why.
I disagree very strongly with his assessment on Kaka. He uses a screenshot of Colin smiling to say Colin is not remotely put off by the action and says Kaka's force is negligible. That's just not true. He's cherry-picked the screenshot. It's true that Colin is okay once he realizes it's Kaka. But let's look at the actual action. The attached screenshots show the violent conduct and I don't think it's factual to say Colin is not "remotely put off by this."
I also don't like that he tries to get in Elfath's head and accuses him of knowing it's a penalty kick but giving the DFK instead. Again, I've said from the beginning that the non-PK decision is a mistake. But it's not hard to imagine something like Elfath not waiting for the right angle. Accusing him of blatantly ignoring a PK goes too far. He also is wrong in saying the VAR should have "sat on his buzzer" (spoiler alert: there is no buzzer). If the VAR sees a missed penalty kick, he has an obligation to alert the referee. Full stop. These guys have been trained all year and are being paid to do a job. Part of that job is getting penalty kick decisions correct. This was a penalty kick decision. End of story. Advocating that VARs start ignoring in/out penalty decisions because the foul is, in the opinion of the author, too soft for a penalty, is dangerous.
I hate to pile on, but here goes... His analysis of the Dallas-Colorado incident shows that he hasn't been taught or trained in what an Attacking Possession Phase (APP) is. This stuff is what has been drilled for over a year now and underpins how decisions get made on plays like this. Again, as I said above, from a referee side of things I hope the same "clear and obvious" standard applies to penalties and as a neutral fan I don't exactly love that this can be overturned. But suggesting that anything went wrong here is inaccurate. The review in Dallas-Colorado worked exactly how it's supposed to work. To be fair, other than the comparison to the Kaka incident, I'm with him completely on the Houston DOGSO decision. To the extent that he's expressing, in his final paragraph, that VARs and the current VR system might not be good for the game, I think it's well-established that I'm sympathetic to a lot of those views. But this isn't theoretical anymore. It's here. Advocating that it got used incorrectly or shouldn't have been used at all in the three situations he points out is, from a refereeing standpoint, wrong. The only wrong thing in the three incidents he pointed out was Elfath not changing his call to a PK, and that's not on the VR system (unless they just never showed him the correct replay, of course); that's likely on human error.
I loved the commentator on the Kaka clip. He acknowledges that hands to the face is an automatic sending off, but now wants human judgement to apply the LotG. Well, VR was put into place because people, like this commentator, didn't think referees applying human judgement was good for the game. They were warned, and now they must deal with the consequences.
And PotW focuses on simulation: http://proreferees.com/2017/08/16/play-of-the-week-23-simulation/ Not surprised PRO fully backs the second and third cautions here. I am pretty surprised it unequivocally backs the first one without much explanation. Yes, the Houston attacker might be looking for the foul, but there is contact (and as we've talked about before, top referees have not been encouraged to show simulation cards when there is substantial contact) and the defender did put his leg in a position that likely would have tripped the opponent if he just ran through the challenge, rather than fell forward. I think there's a question of where the line is on punishing a defender for taking a risk and missing the ball versus punishing the attacker for knowing he's lost the ball and working to win (or con the referee into giving) a DFK. Not saying Salazar was wrong, just saying there could have been more of a teaching moment here because this one seems a lot less clear than the other two.