2017 MLS Week 25 Referee Discussion

The VAR in Montreal is either David Barrie or Yusri Rudolf--they are the two non-PRO Canadians who have been fully trained in VAR and approved to work in MLS.

 

Sarvas tackle in DC reviewed. Initially there was no call but Unkel showed yellow once the ball was put out of play and the injury was apparent (could be justified as playing advantage, though that looked doubtful). OFR initiated. Unkel reviews. Yellow stands. Given this and the Elfath tackle two weeks ago, the standard for a clear and obvious SFP seems very high (much higher than VC).

 

The Cole thing was ugly in two regards. First, it took way too long--VR wasn't initiated until 2 full minutes after the foul; there's no reason for that delay. Second, think about the standards here--Stoica gives a red and then a VAR suggests it's a "clear and obvious" mistake and Stoica says "nope, it's not." Using VAR to get a clear and obviously missed red card I understand (and can understand difference of opinion between two refs). But one ref telling another that he clearly got this wrong? I don't understand that standard being triggered here. To begin with, this was probably BOTH DOGSO and SFP! Stoica got this right the whole way probably with help of AR. VR made this worse.

As an aside, the IFAB needs to come up with a clear signal for "call stands." It's almost as if no one thought that through.

On the PK, boundary line decisions are not supposed to go to OFR in MLS, which explains why it's all on the VAR (and might explain why Elfath didn't move the NE PK into the box).

Offside decision is straightforward and a prime reason why VR now exists. Though part of me wonders if they would have pieced it together if they didn't have the crutch of VR.

How much stoppage time was added? At least 6 minutes, right?

 

If there were no other injuries or substitutions, that's probably justifiable. Five or six, all depends on how much time you think was lost due to review vs how much of the time would have been lost anyway. Ball was probably out of play for 6.5-7 minutes around the three incidents, but some of that is always going to happen with a red card, a PK, and a waved off goal. Five is not perfect but better than I anticipated.

 

PK awarded via VR in Portland. Good use and correct decision.

Goal disallowed in Salt Lake. Again good use and correct decision but it's fascinating that not one defensive player, including the goalkeeper who was clearly and obviously fouled, protested the goal.

Found it hilarious that a player sent off for a 2CT was visually asking for the video review. We can't be too far away from a player asking for a review on a caution... will be interesting to see if the request gets a second yellow.

 

But you can, which is frustrating. As I've said on the other thread, the consistency on what "clear and obvious" is on penalties is the biggest hurdle for FIFA and the referees who use VR. A lack of consistency in penalty area decisions is what could undo this whole thing with the public. But the lack of consistency with SFP is probably going to be the most frustrating aspect for the referee community. I just don't get it. Maybe the kinks just need to be ironed out (after all, the VAR did suggest not sending off Sarvas was clearly and obviously wrong, so 50% of the two people who mattered thought this was red). But given everything we've seen the past year and a half, the bar for SFP in all competitions is much higher than it is for VC and I don't know why.

Good point. I'd say two things in response.

First, I'm adapting quickly and am now accepting that blatant holds, where the defender is grabbing the attacker (and the attacker is not grabbing back), caught on camera, are going to be given as penalties by VR in most cases.

Second, I'd say this particular penalty incident is clearer for me because the foul is closer to the drop zone and it's hard to dismiss the effect of the foul as trifling (I think "trifling" stands a better chance of being applied in the German scenario, because the attacker was never getting to the ball).

There's obviously always going to be the issue of how much of a hold is enough--insofar as force goes--to justify a penalty award. That's already hard to adjudicate in real-time, never mind on replay. But given where the ball was going in the Portland incident and how clear the hold was, I think a penalty is always the expected call here if it gets seen properly, which VR allows you to do here.

 

How?

It's almost not worth debating this because Pedro did touch the ball and the point is moot, but it's not good to have this incorrect information go unchallenged.

"Interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball, period. If he didn't touch the ball, he didn't interfere with play, which makes your statement unequivocally wrong based on the technical aspects of the Law.

Moreover, to the practical points, if he didn't touch the ball, for offside to have been triggered for interfering with an opponent, two of the standards are clearly obstructing an opponent's vision (he didn't) or challenging an opponent for the ball (he didn't), which in no way were met. The other two, which would come closest to triggering an actual offside offence, would be clearly attempting to play the ball (yes), when this action impacts an opponent (no), or making an obvious action (yes) which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball (no).

Without a touch on the ball by Pedro, there is no offside offence here. Saying otherwise is incorrect.

 

Again, right off the bat because you are actually talking about interfering with an opponent, not with play. That's pedantic to outsiders who just want to know "offside or not?" but it matters. Under no circumstances is he "interfering with play."

Thanks, but that's too bad. Hopefully you'll see the light because this is pretty close to clear-cut.

You're citing old language in the LOTG to begin with. This is not from the current version of the Laws. Even if it was, given the ball was likely going in the net anyway, I question why you think this applies. Regardless...

I cited the four ways someone can be guilty of offside for interfering with an opponent. Two of them unequivocally didn't happen. Since Pedro attempted to play the ball (again, in a theoretical world where he didn't actually touch the ball), the third or fourth clause could be triggered IF his action impacted an opponent or it impacted an opponent's ability to play the ball. No opponent could have played that ball, so the fourth clause is a nonstarter. You're left with asking whether or not Pedro's attempt to play the ball impacted an opponent. That's literally all you've got. You really think Pedro's attempt to play the ball (the attempt, not his position), impacted an opponent? The goalkeeper, who was on the other post, or the defender, who was behind him and further away from the goal, would have done something differently if not for the attempt to play the ball or did do something differently because of it?

 

Other than Guzman's red, which was likely due to the player being down for an injury (he looked like he recorded a card but didn't show it), what examples do you have? The Cole and Sarvas cards were both shown before review was initiated.