The reasoning would be that the ball came more behind the attacker who got it and that while he got the ball, it was NOT in a way that, ITOOTR, was more advantageous than the FK, so the advantage was not actually realized. But regardless of the ball being a bit behind, he was alone in the PA ....
I'm probably in the minority here (or alone), but I liked the call. In my mind there is a sliding scale of how big the opportunity is with the free kick, vs. how much the advantage materializes. So if this was at midfield, you let it go, the shot fizzles, meh, play on. But an attacking free kick at the top of the 18 is a more strategic opportunity than that lame shot Shea got off (and part of that is probably owing to the foul, tbh). Had Shea blasted it, and there was some incredible save, I'd be fine with a corner. But this didn't feel right to let the play end with that half-hearted shot after such a cynical foul. And I'd ramp it up in the PA too. If there was a cynical hand ball in the box (like Suarez vs. Ghana), I'd let the follow up happen for a second or two, and if its not a goal, I'd give the PK. I know that's not a popular standard for US referees or assessors, namely because you can't diagram it in an acronym and standardize it. But there probably is a german word that captures it perfectly....fingerspitzengefühl or something.
https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...a-united-fc-vs-fc-dallas/details/video/135498 think he will get more than 1 game?
I'm not sure I agree with that as an assessment of what factually happened during the play. Certainly, this may be a case where a slow motion video review from a particular viewpoint can lead to a particular result that a different view might not. The video review seemed to show two angles. One from field side which didn't show much and one from directly upfield. From the second view, directly up field, the ball passes to Vasquez's left and then he slightly extends his leg TO HIS RIGHT creating the contact with the LA player. In that way, it does not make it look like Vasquez tried to pull out of the tackle. It makes it look like he tried to create contact with the player. Now perhaps it is an artefact of the angle plus the slowed video. But that's why I think Salazar stayed with the red.
This. With the speed involved, the force on those exposed bones on the top of the foot does not have to be made with the cleat in order to inflict some damage. I understand that it is a stretch for some of us to give red here, but it cannot be ignored that Vazquez went out of his way to make contact here. That's a dangerous, intentional tackle, and I can be convinced to show red there. Disagree. I think a classroom is split, or is maybe 60-70% for YC. I don't see the majority of a room going red, though. How are you certain that Salazar didn't want to look for himself?
In terms of procedure they aren't supposed to. VAR isn't there for referees to 'guess' at decisions and then go double check them because they just want to. The only reason he would have gone to review himself would be if the VAR suggested to do so because the decision may be incorrect. Of course that is by the book and what actually got communicated is anyone's guess.
You're way off here. The VAR is CONSTANTLY checking everything from a million angles. So EVERYTHING technically gets a VAR review. Especially PK decisions. Only if the VAR feels a clear and obvious error is made will they ask the referee to hold up the next restart at which point they can communicate a bit further, and possibly go to full review with referee personally checking the monitor. The ball stayed in play for a quite a long time after this decision which would have given the VAR multiple looks at the play and obviously did not feel the need to hold up the next restart.
I agree with your 2nd sentence, but your first & third sentences are wrong. IFAB disagrees with you and the others who state that only the VAR can start this process (emphasis mine): If in this case, Salazar had yellow and then got conflicting information from AR1, AR2, or the 4th, is it really out of the question that he could have just said "hey, VAR, I want to take a look at this one"? It needs to be "clearly and obviously" wrong for the VAR to recommend a review, but it does not have to meet that threshold if the Referee wants to request a review. If we think of the Video Assistant Referee as just another Assistant Referee, this concept becomes easier to understand. The Referee is in charge of the match, not the VAR. As for sticking with a RC after review, I reiterate my previous comment - punishing this with a RC here is not an answer that is off the reservation, and I personally don't think it's a "clear and obvious error" to give a RC here. But that's just me.
I think you got confused about the situations. With all the midweek games going on and such. My last post was about a handling decision that would have resulted in a PK in the ATL/MTL game, not the Salazar red card in that ATL/LA game. Agreed about the referee initiating if he feels the need to, but in the handling situation Elfath had already emphatically given a huge hell no signal from a decent angle and close distance.