On one of them, Morris was offside by a hair (it was also a couple frames before the ball was kicked) and the announcer said, "I didn't know your collarbone counts as offside." This suggests that he assumes she got it wrong or is playing into a female stereotype of being very detail oriented. He couldn't bring himself to say, "That's a tough close call she got correct."
What would a center have to discuss with the VAR ref after going to the technical area and viewing the replays? One of the plays this weekend led to a review at the monitor, after which the center ran back to the middle of the field - and proceeded to speak over the headset for another minute and more. That was awkward, and confusing.
We don't know. It doesn't make a ton of sense and doesn't seem to be consistent with the protocols. I'd be interested in learning what was going on.
Probably something along the lines of... VAR: "uh Chico, you might want to reconsider sticking with the original call on the field."
Want to make it even more confusing? I read this three times as "The center back ran to the middle of the field - and proceeded to speak over the headset for another minute and more..."
"Maybe" RRA monitor was not working properly. Video was grainy and not clear as to what referee was supposed to see. Hence the further headset conversation afterwards. "Good, informed guess that is"
It's nice that you're sensitive to sexism, but you should always be careful of projecting what could be your own prejudices and stereotypes on things. I watched and listened to the game and didn't hear this. I remembered the sequence completely differently, but I wanted to be completely certain before posting. Unfortunately I deleted the game from my DVR. However, the game is replaying right now. I wrote up a transcript. Mark Followill: Nicely done by Lodeiro... to Dempsey... and a flag comes up. No goal for Jordan Morris. Quick reaction by the far side AR. Flag went up. No goal 20 minutes in.... And the whistle went before the ball went into the goal which is important because that removes it from the video review equation. Alexi Lalas in agreement with the significance of the whistle: There you go. There you go. There you go. [Freeze frame just before the Dempsey pass to Morris and the replay begins] Alexi Lalas: but it is close here Mark Followill: It's tight Alexi Lalas: It's yeah it's off eh you got a little... clavicle Mark Followill: <in joking tone>I haven't heard of the collar bone being offside before. Alexi Lalas: [laughter] A minute later during a stoppage, Lalas transitioned into production having the replay queued to begin with the pass from Dempsey much more easily showing that it was offside as they already agreed. Alexi Lalas: Well let's first go back to that offside call or possible offside call depending on how you look at it, but I mean look he's off. It's, it's clavicle, doesn't really matter, [laughing] any part of the body there that can be other than the arms there. If you would like me to post quick video later so you can hear that context is not missing with just a text account, I can do that. Both mentions of the clavicle were as a joke They agreed it was offside. The only mention of the AR was during the live play-by-play making it clear the flag was up before Morris even took the shot.
Simon Borg's Instant Replay is up (link here), and he highlighted a couple of plays that I'm curious about. There plays in question are back-to-back in the video, both involve VAR and potential red cards that were initially deemed yellow. The first case is in the Toronto game (1:52-2:23 in the video), the second case immediately after is a Colorado player fouled by a Houston player (until about 2:55 in the video). To my (admittedly totally untrained) eye the fouls look identical, including the initial point of impact. Can anyone here explain what the difference is between these two fouls? FWIW, I'm not a fan of any of these teams, I'm trying to better understand how referees see the game.
Looking at their point of contact and force, both of them probably should have been red. With the similarities between the two, I wouldn't be surprised if PRO talks about these in their next clinic. I'm sure there is someone who would disagree, but I would chalk it up to a mistake.
On the TFC/SJE one, I'd chalk it up to a poor viewing angle by both AR1 and Referee. The fourth should have been able to see that one, but may have been distracted by the pending substitution by SJE.
My guess is the number of the offender, or the exact location of the restart. He goes, watches, decides "Foul and Red card" but now has forgotten the number. Or "foul, red card to #4" but now can't remember what half of the field the restart should be in. And actually in both NFL and NBA, its not uncommon to see the official go back for a second look (or a second listen in the MLB) for that exact reason. They determined the foul/penalty was legit, but need to find the shooters number, or the game clock, or down/yardage. The soccer version of that is probably the exact location of the foul (or if staying with "no foul" the location of the previous restart).
Can the VAR provide input on whether or not it is an OGSO? At the time of the whistle, Chad Marshall was in position to basically take away the right half of the goal from Jones.
VAR can intervene on any red cards other than second cautions, so yes. But it would have to be "clear and obvious" that Marshall was in a position to challenge at the time of the (alleged) foul for such an intervention. I don't think that standard would be met.
Except in this situation, he had opted to stick with the call on the field and it appeared that the restart was in the right position.
Fair enough. That's what I thought at first, but on second watch from the wide angle view I thought Marshall was in good enough position to take away at least some of the right side of goal, as he would have slid while the shot was taken. Either way, I can see why the call was made the way it was in real time.
Most of this VAR stuff is still like flying a plane as you build it, so I'm not saying there aren't VARs might intervene based on what was there or on similar plays as all this develops. But a key point to remember is that the question a VAR is supposed to ask is "was the decision obviously wrong?" not "was the decision correct?" You could have an incident where the optimal decision in a classroom setting based on all the replays is NOT DOGSO, but that still wouldn't (or shouldn't) be enough to overturn a debatable DOGSO decision. Now, if replays conclusively showed there was no foul, that would be enough.
If VAR is 100% sure on what the call should be... Does that qualify? I think that is where issues with VAR lie. You can say " I can see why he made that call but I am still 100% sure he got it wrong. Is that no longer clear and obvious? That seems like that is when the VAR should say "I am confident you got this wrong and may want to look at it again" CR says " what are you seeing?" VAR explains and then the CR makes a decision to stick with the call, change it or look at the replay themselves. I think if VAR is confident a call should be X then that should be grounds for them to bring it up with the CR and have that discussion.
I was actually more interested in the difference after the review, in the Toronto game the review resulted in a change from yellow to red for the SJ player, in the Colorado game the Houston player kept his yellow card. I would have expected both plays to result in a similar punishment after the video review given the similar nature of the offenses.
Just saw a new angle on the Torres play. The one question I had was whether there was a tug with the left arm that we couldn't see from the camera angles (although the fall wasn't consistent with a tug there). Anyway, from his video, it's clear that, as most have concluded, it was just a missed call. I realize that VAR doesn't have access to this footage, but for academic purposes, it's a great view of the play and of Fisher's angle on it. His angle seems very good, such that he could see that there was no tug, and he was obviously focused on the two players. Hard to know what he saw or if he simply anticipated that there would be contact and saw what he anticipated. It is, in fact, a remarkable play by Torres, perhaps so remarkable that it was hard to believe in real time. Anyway, starts at 3:35-ish... (It helps to view this full screen, which you have to go to the actual Vimeo page for [remove the space after the colon, since I can't post a link to Vimeo without it embedding]: https: //vimeo.com/233397586) Watching that reminded me: One thing that hasn't been discussed here, however, is the no-call on the play that leads to that break, in which Jamison plays past the ball and into Bruin with pretty significant force. Not sure the controversial breakaway ever should have happened. Thoughts on this?
Oh, for sure. I don't think VAR could have gone back to that. But Fisher would have saved himself a big headache by calling what, to me, seems an obvious foul. Separate discussions. But so much has been said about the Torres/Jones incident, I thought it worth pointing out that Fisher seemed to have overlooked a pretty obvious foul just prior to that.
I think it could have and maybe should have. All penalties, goals and red cards for DOGSO are eligible for being disallowed due to APP. A Dallas goal was disallowed for a foul by Dallas defender on a Colorado attacker 70 yards from goal. Again, via the spirit and intent of VAR, this red card should not have been reversed. But by what we've seen this far, it should have been absolutely reviewed and, probably, overturned. I think you can make a greater case for an APP reversal than a reversal on the actual DOGSO foul.
If that's the case, is that on Ford (the VAR?). I understand why he didn't trigger an on-field review of the red card (not enough video evidence), but shouldn't he have triggered one for the APP? I guess I don't understand whose responsibilty it is to define what falls under APP.
So this entire LA-Seattle red card seems like a case study in why VAR, in my opinion, is failing (despite some clear successes in individual incidents, the overall product is not good). First, you have the potential foul that occurs at the change of possession. Since the challenge occurs at the start of the attacking possession phase (APP), this incident can be reviewed and if a foul is clear and obvious, it would negate the red card. However, we have no idea if the incident was even checked. Given how long some replays take to get up (look at the Toronto-San Jose SFP incident again), it actually seems unlikely the VAR would have been able to check this challenge and the DOGSO foul itself in the time that elapsed between the red card and the restart. So you start with the technical challenges of being able to check multiple things in a short time span. Then you have the question--if the challenge was checked--as to whether it was a clear and obvious foul? Sort of looks like it from replay and given that goal that was called back in early August for Dallas, it would be consistent with how that situation was adjudicated. But would this have ever been given as a penalty? Almost certainly not. So now you have--despite the use of video replay--varying standards for what "clear and obvious" is based on the circumstances and location of the challenge. Oh, and to top it off, if a review had been conducted here and it was deemed a foul, you'd have an attacking DFK to Seattle 25 yards from goal... so there is the irony that a team can be awarded an attacking DFK if--and only if--the referee subsequently makes a mistake at the other end of the field; you could never actually review an incident like this to give a clear and obvious attacking DFK on its own merits. The whole concept is a mess. Second, you have the foul call itself that results in the DOGSO red card. Despite what Simon Borg says, most evidence seems to indicate there was no foul or not very much of a foul. But, to Fischer's (and Borg's) credit, there really isn't an angle that conclusively shows the foul call is wrong. Since the absence of evidence can't (or shouldn't) be evidence when you're talking "clear and obvious," we're left with the foul call standing. Interestingly, the VAR doesn't even prompt Fischer to take another look, so either the VAR held to the standard that he can only make a suggestion if he sees evidence the call was obviously wrong OR he hinted he wasn't convinced (which he's not supposed to do, but this is new and everyone is human) and Fischer assured him that he was. Third, you have the assessment of whether, once the foul was called, it was an OGSO. As I said above, I don't think you can say that classifying this as an OGSO was a mistake. Given how much Jones slowed, there's certainly an argument that he'd have been covered by the time a shot got off. But I don't think it's obviously not a red. Regardless, the question becomes whether or not this component of the decision was addressed during the VAR check because you can only do so many things at once and, while it may have not mattered here, it's going to matter in other incidents. You're left with a DOGSO red card that (most) everyone thinks is a phantom foul and that, per the VAR protocols put in place and the practice seen thus far in other matches, likely should (and at least definitely could) have been annulled anyway based on a foul as play transitioned. But the call stands and because the process is opaque, nobody knows what got checked and what didn't. Did this call stand because the VAR concurred everything was officiated correctly (or, to use the proper parlance, not in an obviously wrong manner)? Or did it stand because the VAR missed something or technology didn't allow all components to be checked in a timely fashion? We just don't know. We do know, however, that this is not the solution that was advertised. When the USOC did the 2-whistle experiment back in 2001, the participating teams and players hated it so much that it was scrapped for the Final. MLS is a product that still needs to sell itself. The advertising and hype around VAR in July was clearly meant to do that. I'm beginning to wonder if owners and general managers might start believing that controversial VAR incidents in the playoffs would be counter productive. It's probably impossible to abandon or suspend the VAR experiment at this point, before the IFAB formally acts, but I'd be shocked if you didn't start hearing some rumblings about it.
You're forgetting that each time something happens, the VAR is saying "check complete" and the crew is holding up the game during that time. There is supposed to always be an acknowledgment by the VAR that there is no clear & obvious error. To state that the crew would have restarted the game prior to the VAR signing off is wrong, per every document out there. The spirit of your post is correct, but you are incorrect. The only reason that a routine foul could be reviewed is "if--and only if--the referee subsequently [calls a penalty kick, gives a red card, or awards a goal] on the other end of the field," to correct your statement. It has nothing to do with "making a mistake" and everything to do with a game-critical incident subsequently happening. E.g., the Dallas goal previously mentioned. One thing I've noticed is the clear lack of camera angles from the far side of stadiums. If MLS thinks this will work with cameras only positioned on the team side and the occasional end line, then we will often have plays like this where there is no definitive angle. I refer you to the Rafael Ramos red card in Orlando earlier this year. You can't say "most evidence seems to indicate no foul" when there is nothing but bad camera angles. We never see Jones' right side. Why would you think that the position on a DOGSO RC wouldn't have been checked? There are 3 things to look at on this play - the position of defenders, the merits of a foul, and the DFK on the other end. You're assuming that everyone on the Video Review team ignored/missed all of this. I don't buy it. Agree. Conspiracy theories abound, it seems. We simply don't know because there is no announcement system like in football. It seems like what was advertised to me. You advocated for not re-refereeing the game. I don't think they're doing that - at least so far. VAR intervention & correction occurs when something is clearly wrong or clearly missed, for the most part (you're never going to get 100% of the calls right, even with Video Review).