But I'm not stating that--at least not with any certainty. The potential foul in the APP transition is not even a reviewable event until a goal or red card happens at the other end of the field, right? I'm implicitly making two suggestions. I'm saying that such a challenge might get "lost" in the process. It could simply get forgotten or not noticed by the VAR (again, we're all human). Or it could not get pulled in time by the production team. The VAR can only check what he sees, right? Are we sure the replays pulled after Fischer blows the whistle for DOGSO would immediately show the potential foul above, which didn't get noticed here until over 48 hours after the match? Your correction is (mostly) correct and appreciated, because I shouldn't have used that language. We should add, though, that (and correct me again if I'm wrong here), if the referee does NOT call a penalty kick or give a red card but the VAR thinks he should have, the potential APP foul comes into play still, right? So it's not just affirmative KMI calls at the other end of the field that trigger the APP review--it's KMIs, period, even those brought to light via the VAR. Fully agree with your point here, but I still think it's correct to say "most evidence" because, well, this is the only evidence we have. It's a problem we only have that evidence, of course. But for right now it is what it is. I'm not making that assumption. Just pointing out that it needed to be checked. Unless I'm misinterpreting you, I'm not sure how you can agree in one breath and then suggest I'm pushing a conspiracy theory in the next. I'm simply saying that we don't know because the process is opaque, a statement with which you agree. This is new and everyone's human. It's very possible everything is being done correctly through the processes and that Howard Webb has trained the best VARs in the world. It's also possible people are making some mistakes and missing things here and there. With a new experiment, it would be helpful to know if the process itself is working perfectly but we're not getting the best results (which would mean there's a problem with the concept of VAR) OR if there are some human or technological errors that are happening and they still need to be ironed out (which means we have a problem with the practice of VAR thus far). Those are two different problems with two different remedies. This is definitely where we're going to part ways. I think there have been several situations where matches have absolutely been re-refereed and then some others where the standard for "clear and obvious" has been extraordinarily high (which is what was advertised). Maybe over time, the pendulum swings and stays fixed in the latter direction. But we are nowhere close to that yet from what I've seen.
I love this line: "Please do not take into consideration Video Review. It is very unlikely that DOGSO calls would ever be overturned as they are subjective judgment calls and would rarely fall into the category of clearly wrong." Right, because penalties and red cards aren't subjective. I mean, you could say that DOGSOs will rarely get overturned (or awarded) because the standard of "clear and obvious" will be too high on what is almost always a debatable call. Saying they won't be overturned because they are subjective decisions perpetuates this myth that VR is only addressing objective facts. It's also pretty ironic to point out the decisions are subjective while PRO uses these examples and asks for the right answer. Presuming a foul was committed in all cases, I actually think the color of the card is incorrect in all three instances. Jones was the player who could most easily be challenged by an opponent at the time the foul occurred. If you freeze frame the other two, the NYRB is four yards ahead of the other opponent and is already outpacing him when he's fouled and the allegedly covering Timbers defender isn't even in the same zip code at the moment the foul starts. I fully expect to be told I'm objectively wrong in a week, though.
I think come playoff time, the short comings and inconsistencies of VAR could really be exposed. MLS referees have historically refereed playoff matches with a "hear that evil, see no evil" mentality. Basically, keep the players in the game at all costs and keep the cards to a minimum. It will be really hard to justify and sell no red cards with VAR on some of the tackles we will see in the playoffs.
I don't know how you don't think they are not re-refereeing the game with VAR. The incident in the Minnesota match was the clearest example yet. VAR has already crossed the line yet of re-refereeing simply in its protocols alone. The APP standard/idea should never be in place. I get the purpose behind it. They need a way to be able to disallow goals to handling like Henry or Maradona and you can't put in the protocols, "only review goals when handling occurred." I don't have a problem with them necessarily re-refereeing the game as more to what they are choosing to re-referee. They are disallowing goals and PKs due to trifling or minor fouls, but basically not awarding penalties and refusing to upgrade terrible tackles.
The PTFC-NYRB incident confused me. When the foul was given, the defenders are there covering. But when the foul was committed - the first ankle grab/hold - the attacker is poised to be way out in front of the nearest defender. These are tough for me because it suggests the attacker should go to ground the moment he is first touched and so highlight the contact, rather than trying to play through it.
We've talked about the PRO's professionalism (or lack thereof) in other contexts--e.g., not listing the names of officials and instead writing, "Canada CSA." This week's POTW is another example: "The referees in these clips, Drew Fischer, Alan Kelly and Ismail Elfath, respectfully have to go through all of the considerations in order to make an accurate decision. There is little doubt in all three of these plays the criteria of distance, direction and control are satisfied, the criteria of “location and number of defenders” may be potentially difficult to judge." Respectfully. Wow. The referees were very "respectful" in their consideration of the DOGSO criteria. I mean, come on. Does anyone proofread these things? I just don't get it. PRO needs to put a much better face on their operations. There are so many unforced errors.
I believe the word respectfully in this context may simply mean they listed the names of the officials in the same order as the video clips.
What @socal lurker said. Should have been respectively. In the grand scheme, it's not a big deal; I get that. But these small things add up to paint a picture of a lack of professionalism. And I can tell you, if I received a cover letter/resume with an error like that, the candidate wouldn't be getting a call.
Torres (Sounders) red card rescinded: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/09/14/independent-panel-rescinds-red-card-seattles-roman-torres
The Independent Panel didn't say if they rescinded this because they thought it wasn't a foul or because they thought OGSO conditions weren't met. From what I'm reading, however it sounds like Seattle made its case on the latter point, not the former. Any idea if that's confirmed somewhere? And while I personally think the correct call on the field would have been to not give a red card (I'll duck the issue of whether it was a foul for the moment), this just feels weird. VAR is checking to see if there is a clear and obvious error. Again, barring any technological snafus, he determined the conditions for DOGSO were met or at least that they were not obviously absent. So now we're re-refereeing the re-refereeing? Where exactly does it stop? And I didn't realize the IP could intervene here, because I know the DisCo can only intervene on plays checked by the VAR if they determine something meriting a 2-game suspension was missed. It's like a bunch of loosely affiliated kangaroo courts with varying standards. The referee, VAR, IP and DisCo could all reach a different determination on the same play.
Re: the rescinded card, common sense would say that all they need to argue is the merits of the DOGSO, not the merits of the foul. This decision does not surprise me at all. Separately, for all the skepticism about the merits of the foul on Jones in the Seattle / LA game, this video at can put that to bed. Jones is clearly fouled on his right leg (the one shielded by the primary camera) by Torres as he is attempting to plant. No grab. No pull. It's a leg foul, all day long. Let this be yet another lesson that what we see on TV doesn't always give us the best angle. I think any one of us would have called this foul. At least I hope we would have. Begin at 3:35 - For the Video Review aspect, this angle would not have been available, as it seems to be a proprietary promotional camera for Seattle. At 3:35, you also get a different look at the potential foul that would have started the Attacking Phase of Play.
That line in the PotW smells like a hint at a VAR directive: don't review DOGSO calls as long as there's contact. In this case there was leg to leg contact so a foul call isn't clearly and obviously wrong. I think what they mean by "highly subjective" is that, as opposed to the player safety issues associated with other misconduct, the referee relies more on a "feel for the game" to make this call than for any other call in the game, at least in the US where we seem to bend over backwards to find any reason at all to keep the red in our pocket. They'd rather the referee on the field, directly involved in the game, make that call as opposed to someone in the booth watching on a monitor. This makes no sense to me, but it sure sounds like something that PRO would say. And it also sounds like PRO to immediately throw that out the window and vote in favor of an appeal.
Unfortunately, what sulfur and I (along with most everyone else, it seems) are saying that it seems like the referees just made a mistake. We could all/most agree that both of these should be red cards. If you're looking for a why, pretty much every referee mistake boils down to being uneducated or being incredulous. Being uneducated could be from not knowing the proper sanction, or being unsure that a particular sanction is appropriate in that situation. Chico (Hilario Grajeda) has been around a while, and it's extremely unlikely that he didn't know the proper sanction unless he only saw the tackle catch the ankle and not that there was principle contact on the calf. Being incredulous is either intentionally trying to "manage the game" and keep 22 players on the field ("Does that player really deserve to be removed from the game for that?") or not having confidence to properly sanction a player (while referees are human and we all feel bad when people get in trouble, Chico definitely doesn't have an issue being confident). TLDR: (Professional and amateur) referees do actually make mistakes sometimes and Simon Borg does actually get some things right. Please forgive both of these rare realities. (MassachusettsRef has done a great job of very eloquently and systematically putting the downfalls and victories of VAR together for things like this. The victory is that, in one case, the VAR prevented a red card offense from going unpunished. In the other case, VAR literally created a disparity in which it was obvious that another red card offense went unpunished.)