I was speaking about the Guzman card for sure and but also a few of the other that normally go quick with cards are waiting for a word on the radio or the perception is that they are waiting for VAR to say their opinion
What is your point? The "extra flag to checker" thing has been an MLSsoccer.com intern go-to for at least 3 years when they have no idea what to write. The MLS site "box score" is not official--you have to know that. In fact, the site has the card wrongly assigned. Watch the video. Carmona commits the tackle, but the card is showed to Anton Walkes, who kicks the ball away. You'll note Unkel makes a very clear signal on why the card is being issued. This was for DR, not extra flag to checker.
It's actually an Opta stats person in the press box these days. Extra flag to checker means they weren't sure and need more information.
Attempting to play the ball is interfering with the play. Simple. You are never going to agree with that but that is a fact. The attempt to play the ball interferes with the play. Interfering with play” means: playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate Trying to head the ball IS an act of PLAYING.
No, it's not. This is 100% wrong. No, I won't because no, it isn't. You're saying things that are contrary to the Laws and just declaring them facts. You can't do that. Putting it in all caps doesn't make it true. The Laws explicitly talk about attempting to play the ball as something separate from playing or touching the ball. Playing the ball involves contact with the ball, per the Laws. You're insisting that your personal standard is the correct standard per the Laws. It isn't and you're wrong about this.
ESPNFC just went through all the VAR stuff from last night. They were all at a total loss how Sarvas wasn't sent off. I find that attention to be a good thing, because the SFP stuff needs to be clarified. VR could help eliminate some ugly challenges from the game but if the standard for SFP is going to be extraordinary, it might end up having the opposite effect. On the other hand, they went apoplectic because Toledo didn't give a late penalty when the score was 3-3 in Texas. They even said "he didn't even review it." This showed a lack of understanding on how VR gets used but it also showed a place where the slippery slope will surely go. The foul in question was obvious on replay, but wasn't called on the field. If you watch a replay, however, it was probably inches outside the area. So since it wasn't actually a potential penalty, the VAR can't ping the CR. He would be saying "check complete" over the radio. So you're left with the right call by the VAR and a missed DFK by the referee, but pundits and fans think VAR didn't work properly.
After seeing the replay, I had no problem with the call. It's just that in the stadium, you have no idea what is being looked at, even after the goal was disallowed. Hard to make that call from the other end of the stadium.
Obviously a minor point, but on the Portland PK, it is interesting that no caution was given but in the Bundesliga incident a caution. It's overall part of a trend where MLS referees have basically stopped given cautions in the penalty area unless it's DOGSO. In all of Europe and in the EPL, a caution is almost automatic for any hold on a set piece or cross for a penalty area. See the PK given in the Vancouver game as well. Is that not reckless? I guess it is either instruction by PRO or they have just adopted the idea that the penalty is enough. I don't think that is good for the game personally. Everyone is making this up as they go and tweaking it, but in regards to penalty kicks, I think they will almost have to approach like it offside. It is either a foul or not? Almost a fact based review, at least on all challenges involving the feet. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-vs-san-jose-earthquakes/details/video/115850 If we are going to be disallowing goals for bang bang plays like this, then penalties have to be given on bang bang and tight plays. Lastly, the reason for why the "clear and obvious" standard for SFP is so high is because most games will turn into 9 vs. 10. Watch any MLS and EPL match and you can probably find at least one challenge that is "orange" or red card worthy every game. I don't have a problem with being high, but I think the bar does need to get lowered a little bit. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...huge-hit-orlando-instant-replay?autoplay=true Check out Godoy's challenge at the 1:44 minute mark. Again, goals are being disallowed on split second decisions, but this isn't even worthy of a review?
As this was a one-on-one argument, I don't want it to seem to a neutral reader that you're somehow correct. You're not. Any new referee perusing this information needs to know that. "Moving on" doesn't make you right. I need the referee of your next game to know the right way to apply this so that when you yell everything you just wrote, he/she can hopefully not be confused by your opinions on how the game should be called. As a general rule, if a player is WIDE open on the far post, with a GK at the opposite post, and heads in a ball from point blank range, he did not Interfere With An Opponent. You'd have to prevent someone from playing the ball, or impact their ability to play it to be guilty of "IwaO", and being wide open with no one around doesn't tick those boxes. An unmarked man with a wide open goal is not much different - in application - than a wide open player on the far wing. IF Joao Pedro missed this ball and IF it went in the goal, it could be reasonably argued that the goal should stand because no defender (incl the GK) was impacted at all by his attempt to play the ball (again, this is Offside in real life because he did indeed Interfere With Play). This is false. The LOTG clearly define what each of these are. "Interfering With Play" is a proper term, not just someone's description of a play. It's a proper term that is clearly defined. You are never going to agree with that, but that is a fact. The LOTG clearly define "Interfering with Play" as touching the ball. Physically touching it. http://www.theifab.com/laws/offside/chapters/offside-offence Yes. We agree here. Well, it's an act of playing soccer, but it is not an act of the technical term of "Interfering with Play."
Jorge Gonzalez has replaced Armando Villarreal as referee for RSL-COL. Hasn't been posted by PRO yet, but I got the info from one of the assigned ARs so no reason to doubt its veracity.
Drew Fischer is an odd referee. Pointing both ways, contested drop ball, thought a foul was an offside, both teams yelling at him, confused looks. Definitely producing an event tonight.
I've always found him to be a poor man's Petrescu. Basically referees like Petrescu with the same "hear no evil, see no evil" philosophy of game management. The problem is that he just doesn't have the presence and authority for it to work like Petrescu.
The Rapids were awarded a goal through VAR that was initially waved off for offside tonight. I don't know if it was the correct call. On replay one Rapids player has a foot offside, goes up to head the ball, doesn't touch it, and the player right behind him (who was onside) heads it in. Does the offside player attempting to head the ball constitute "interfering with play"?
Really interesting call. Gatt looks like he may be leaning forward as well and his head may be in an offside position. Tough to say it was clear and convincing enough to overturn the offside call made by the AR. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-lake-vs-colorado-rapids/details/video/132242
Offside decisions are supposed to use the Hawkeye lines so offside position becomes an objective decision in VR situations like this. Unless something went wrong technically, we have to assume the goal scorer was confirmed to be onside. As to the question of the other player... either he was also confirmed to be onside or the VAR made the subjective decision that his attempt to play the ball did not impact the nearby opponent.
Well yes, obviously. I was just wondering if there's a case that his subjective decision (assuming Badji was actually offside) was incorrect.
Having just watched the highlight, I hadn't realized that Gonzalez did an OFR (and, smartly, had an AR accompany him). That must mean that VAR had the non-goal scorer in an offside position and kicked the subjective decision about interfering with an opponent to Gonzalez. Watching it, no, I don't think it can be argued. What would the defender have done differently if the other attacker didn't attempt to play the ball? Seems like they got this right. It took 3 minutes, which is way too long in my opinion, but the call was right.
Were you at the game? What in the world was the dropped ball situation? Did he stop play to check on an injured player? Extremely confusing. Announcers thought he had called a foul which I knew wasn't true and they are stupid anyway, but it was still very confusing.
Yep at the game, he actually had two contested drop balls. He stopped to deal with a player, yes. Stuff was going on off the ball all over the place. He missed about three opportunities to play advantage too. The only saving grace for him is that he was gifted a text book DGF early in the second half. I don't get it with Fischer. This is about the sixth or seventh time I've seen him and he seems over his head.
The review in Utah was embarrassing. Just a total farce. Gonzalez looked confused. Like a chicken with his head cut off. Keystone cops. Also showed no urgency, just walking to the monitor, then walking away and walking towards. Also, it's pretty clear that the referees are not trusting the VARs to make the calls. Everything has to be an OFR. Have we had one official decision overturned/changed without an OFR yet in MLS? This experiment is quickly turning sour in MLS. In the New York Derby on Friday there were two pretty clear penalties not reviewed. Both coaches blasted it, and Vieira called it "useless."
And, to refer back to another discussion, an example of VAR increasing rather than decreasing scoring.