First penalty moved to a DFK, I think, in LA. Available replays make that look like the correct call but I hope there was a better angle to determine "clear and obvious error." Galaxy haven't exactly benefited from VR so far.
When oduro collided with Toronto goalie why' didn't sibiiga get there quicker to check on goalie.. he checks on him before asking for trainer...who the heck cares.. it's the keeper
Blanco was just booked for a deliberate forearm to the face in Seatttle. How does Rivas not tell Geiger he needs to review? If the Guzman incident in Orlando was a clear and obvious red, this looked much worse--at least let Geiger look again.
Decent chance it ends up red in a review. Was actually Blanco, but pretty obvious on replay. pic.twitter.com/xNWLszEMVN— Sounder At Heart (@sounderatheart) August 28, 2017
I understand why this would be a red, but at the same time, Blanco is not a big dude. Leerdam's head is really low in a place where Blanco normally wouldn't be hitting. I wonder if that is a factor?
At first glance, it didn't seem like all that much, that's likely why the ref took a bit more time to deal with it initially. Just because it's the goalkeeper that goes down, doesn't mean you race to bring on the trainer faster than another player.
Not sure what you mean by ends of red in review. you mean if Mark had reviewed it??? I agree. he would have gone red
I wasn't aware that Hawkeye lines were being used. I thought one of the reasons MLS chose the version of VAR that is in use was because it is cheaper than using Hawkeye's line technologies (even just Hawkeye goal line technology). But I'm not sure where I got that idea from and I'm definitely not the expert here, so I'll take your word that it is there as fact. With that said, I would love to see PRO review this call in their POTW. It has so many elements that they could use to help educate referees and fans: Two players right near the offside line. One player who attempts to play the ball unsuccessfully. Call on the field of offside. Hawkeye lines being used in the replay. Potential Hawkeye lines on two offensive players and a couple defensive players. How Hawkeye accounts for the height axis by identifying parts of the player that can play a ball (head, chest, legs). Clear and obvious standard. Communication between Referee, AR, and VAR. Time it took to make the final determination.
Please don't. Hawkeye was used by FIFA and I assumed it was being used by MLS. I've now been told by a pretty reliable source that I am incorrect. That, of course then opens up a host of questions that you enumerate (most notably, what "clear and obvious" is on an offside position decision where technology isn't used to get it objectively correct). I would also like to see this as a PotW. But then again there are about 8-10 incidents this week that would be very helpful to know if PRO deemed VR worked correctly or incorrectly.
I heard/read there were communication issues with VAR in Seattle and thus VAR wasnt used in the game.
The difficult thing for Geiger here is that he can't claim he didn't know there was an elbow above the shoulders, since he issued a caution. So it becomes more difficult to justify the difference between this offense and the one for which he sent off Nouhou at the end of the game. (There was also an earlier and similar infraction by Mabiala against Bruin, for which he issued a verbal warning.) I chalked the first up to game management (14' of a rivalry match). The one by Blanco was textbook and should have seen red, but again, I suppose game management? That's a harder one. All of that seems to be justifiable if not for the straight red to Nouhou in added time. 902010556139364352 is not a valid tweet id
Yeah, exactly what I meant. Seems pretty clear on replay that it's a red. Where are you seeing this? ---- Two other points from this match. First, I think the penalties shouts were all called correctly. The handballs were more ball to hand and pretty clearly an "in they eyes of the referee" type call. Could probably have gone either way, and no penalty was probably more correct. The penalty at the end of the half was a clear cut foul. Second, I think there are three critical incidents with hands to the face: Minute 14: Mabiala elbows Bruin in the throat. Hard to see from the available clips, but this one seemed like a good candidate for a red both in person and on my DVR (I'm assuming this is one of the incidents Freidel is referencing). (Tweet) Minute 20: Blanco elbows Leerdam in the face. Foul is called and Blanco goes back in to yell at Leerdam. As I mentioned above, for me this is a straight red for SFP or potentially VC since the ball is away. I think there's also an argument to issue a yellow for the foul and a second yellow for going back to yell at Leerdam. (Video) Minute 90+3: Nouhou is sent off for hitting Chara in the face. This is probably the right call in general (maybe just a yellow?), but with the other two incidents being no misconduct and a yellow, I have a hard time thinking this one is a red. Also, for what it's worth, mlssoccer.com calls this VC. To me, this is more SFP. (Video) The inconsistency here is frustrating. Thoughts on any of these three incidents? Would be curious if VAR wasn't working if they would have revisited them. Also, why not let the fans know it's out of commission?
I think you're making a huge logical leap. The Seattle player gets forearmed off the ball after he has released the pass to a teammate. Geiger is about 20-25 yards away, slightly ahead and looking back. His vision would be following the ball to prepare for the next challenge while also trying to keep an eye on the previous encounter. It's probably very likely that Geiger saw the physical encounter and knew he saw "something." Was it an elbow to the face? Or was it more a shoulder barge to prevent the Seattle player from making his run? Was it deliberate violence or something designed to be more tactical that had a bad result? Geiger only gets one "look," which is probably half a look, and has to make those assessments immediately. When you see something like this and you have doubt, the instinct is to go yellow for a variety of reasons. On the Tolo red card, Geiger obviously knew what he saw and reacted immediately and accordingly. On the 14th minute incident, from the one replay I've seen I have no idea what happened so unless you've seen a different replay, I think equating that with Tolo is wrong. Now, both (Tolo and Blanco) should be red cards. But implying that Geiger got one of them right and insinuating he got the other deliberately wrong is way off-base. Angles matter, as does the moment you're able to take your snapshot of the incident as we only get one look at these things. Of course, VR and the VAR are meant to fix issues like this, but that didn't happen.
Read it in numerous comments online. I believe it was brought up on the broadcast? I didn't watch as I was at the game.
Yes, the announcing crew said they had heard there were communication issues for the referee crew and the VAR. I don't think they ever got confirmation.
I think what I'm suggesting is completely logical. Look, I did this for long enough to know that no two incidents are identical and we never get the same look at them, even if they are. But an elbow to the face has been made to be pretty cut and dried. That said, Geiger has a VERY good view of the Blanco incident. He's facing the play when it happens (not looking back), the pass to a teammate was just a few yards and in the same basic line as Geiger's view (so he's not shifting his focus, say, upfield, which is the one thing players don't get about fouls that happen after a pass), and he reacts IMMEDIATELY with a card in hand. This is a split second before the contact: This is right as the contact occurs: Given his instantaneous reaction, he saw that Blanco had committed a foul after the ball was released. Given his view of the play, it's very hard to believe that he didn't see the nature of that contact (and given his experience, I'm going to assume he's not handing out YCs based on players' reactions to contact). I don't think it's a huge leap to suggest that given the time in the match (20') that he made a calculation that the best thing for managing the game was a caution. The only alternate argument I can fathom is that he didn't see the elbow (bizarre given his view of it, but possible, I suppose) but saw that it was a foul and issued the YC for the so-called "professional foul." I'm not arguing that Tolo's red card wasn't deserved (I can't find a good-enough view of it, Geiger was right there, and his reaction was again immediate, so I'm assuming it was correct). I'm arguing that this offense is equal to (or worse) that Tolo's and that Geiger made a game management decision early in the match which he didn't make (or didn't need to make) at the end of it. -- I'll also add that I thought he was pretty excellent for the rest of the match. I was defending his performance to my seatmates who wanted a fantom penalty and a few other calls that Geiger very much got right. I was even OK with this Blanco call (although less so on replay) until the Tolo incident.
To clarify on my end, because we're using similar words but saying two different things, his body is facing the "the app" text on the sign boards. In that regard, his head is turned to see the incident which (insofar as being square to it across the field would be "even" with play) is about 7 yards behind him. I'm not doubting and never said he didn't have a view of the overall incident. But a lot is going on there and his eyes wouldn't be locked on Blanco's left arm, as you know. He's got to see the ball, see the approaching defender to the next attacker who will possess the ball, and concentrate on the Blanco challenge, which could be with the leg or the arm (or not occur at all), and be prepared for the next phase of play in the space behind Blanco. Just because 3 or 4 things are all in your direct field of vision at the same time does not mean you see them all clearly or all equally (you've seen some of the awareness/concentration clips relative to this in clinics, right?). Of course he reacts immediately because he's seen an off-the-ball foul designed to stop a promising attack. It's a yellow card offence regardless of the nature of the foul. The immediate yellow card doesn't indicate he saw an elbow at all. And this is where we disagree. Missing clear VC is a -3 on his assessment. The days of what you're talking about are over. He has no incentive to downgrade a VC red that is 100% clear if he sees it. Truly, the only options here are that he didn't see it clearly and erred on the side of caution or he saw it and, for whatever reason, didn't think there was enough force for this to be a 100% red. It could be either. I tend to think it's the former, of course. Aside from the game management issue on which we obviously disagree, I would just note it should be impossible for you (or me, or anyone else) to know if Blanco's forearm was worse than Tolo's VC if we are all admitting we don't have the video to be sure how bad Tolo's was. It's an academic point, but based on what we see, I wouldn't be surprised if Tolo's was more blatant or less blatant than Blanco's--it's really hard to tell. With all that said, I can obviously understand a Seattle fan being upset about the Tolo red card when Blanco did not get the same sanction. I just think any blame, in this case, lies with the VAR or VR system.