2018 MLS Week 2 Referee Discussion

Game counts for week 2 referees and assistant referees below.

CLBvMTL: Penso - 124th [Morgante - 165th, Dunn - 94th]
NEvCOL: Villarreal - 92nd [Manikowski - 181st, Nelson - 89th]
RSLvLAF: Toledo - 246th [Garner - 138th, Ap. Mariscal - 44th]
CHIvSKC: Rivero - 92nd [Hanson - 99th, Brown - 36th]
HOUvVAN: Unkel - 55th [Greeson - 35th, Blanchard - 41st]
NYRvPOR: Chapman - 110th [Uranga - 23rd, Thornberry - 48th]
ORLvMIN: Stoica - 71st [Jo. Johnson - 68th, Mitchell-Carvalho - 53rd]
ATLvDC: Sibiga - 48th [Atkins - 51st, Weisbrod - 62nd]
NYCvLAG: Elfath - 105th [Parker - 136th, Nesbitt - 35th]

 

LAFC at RSL, this goal stood:

972588059760971776 is not a valid tweet id

 

Was the pass forwards or backwards?

 

certainly very close call. looks like he's ahead of the ball ever so slightly

how is LA's GK allowed to wear the same color as his teammates?

 

Ugh, I thought so but then I double checked because somebody claimed otherwise on that tweet and found a page that said it had to be a forward pass. Teach me not to go to the rules.

 

Loved to hear the Red Bull’s broadcasters praise Allen Chapman for leaning on his other officials for help on a CK/GK call.

 

Minnesota United vs Orlando City - VAR again a factor as Sorin Stoica initially ruled a MU foul as out of the area, then reversed to a penalty after a VAR consultation. My son and I both watched the replays. I didn't think there was any angle even close to meeting the "clear and obvious" standard, while my son disagreed.

I honestly scratch my head at most of these VAR decisions. Unless Stoica had more angles than they were showing on the Fox Sports Minnesota broadcast, I can't see at all how he had enough evidence to overrule his original call. The only ones I've really seen that appear to meet the "clear and obvious" standard were the two in the NYCFC-SKC game last week that Geiger handled.

 

I had a look into how VAR operates. And yes, they have multiple views that the TV broadcasts don't necessarily have. Just depends on the cameras bc sometimes the cameras may have similar views. They can zoom in, and go 25%, 50% and 75% speed. They also have 8 cameras.

 

Whether the pass is forwards or backwards does not matter. The attacker in OSP (in relation to 2LD) just needs to stay even with or behind the ball at the time it is played.

 

Generally I agree that VAR leads to just as much head-scratching as before it was in use. But I wonder if the "clear and obvious" standard means different things in different situations. For example when it comes to more black and white things like ball over the goal line, player in OSP, foul inside or outside the PA the standard is more easily applied. But for more subjective things like foul/no foul or red cards then the mountain gets a lot of higher to climb to change the decision. In this instance it seemed like the first contact was either on the line or just inside but since they were moving outside the area fairly quickly it's a little tough to tell.

The mechanics seemed a bit strange as well. He goes and does the review on the monitor, runs back to the general area, lingers for a while talking to players, and then eventually points to the spot. So I wonder what all of that was about. Did he look at the video and say "Yes, I am sticking to the foul call. Mr. VAR can you look at all of the angles and decide for me inside or outside?" And that's what led to the delay?

And to me, the play at the end of the match where he cautioned the MN player for simulation was worth a look as it looked like a clear PK to me in real time. But I don't think they ever showed a replay.

 

That's really good to know. I think I have a frame of reference that VAR works like instant replay does in the NFL, but I know the NFL has much greater coverage with their TV cameras. I'm not against VAR per se, but I do want to see that it's really only correcting truly "clear and obvious" errors. I'm fine with a borderline call standing even if it appears to be wrong, because I don't want to see "re-refereeing" become prevalent.

To @GlennAA11 's point, the "clear and obvious standard" could very well be different for more "objective" decisions like the MNU-ORL call (i.e. those involving lines as opposed to a foul/no foul). No doubt that it was a foul and that the only real question was PK or free kick. I also thought that there was supposed to be zero tolerance for any dissent after a VAR review. Minnesota's captain should have been cautioned if that was the case.

I'm definitely a skeptic on VAR to this point. I wish it was more transparent. I really do think it could work if the parameters are consistently followed. I thought Mark Geiger's use of VAR in the SKC-NYCFC game was the best application that I've seen since the system was implemented. It really didn't disrupt the flow of the game that much, and he got two important calls right. I continue to hope that the system evolves to the point where it's used only in important situations and it doesn't result in long delays.

 

As @frankieboylampard pointed out a few posts ago, the VAR and the referee have access to many more camera angles than the TV producers and the end user watching.

I think part of making it more transparent would be explaining this to the masses, or giving the TV producers access to these cameras, or possibly even allowing TV producers to show exactly what the VAR/CR are looking at while they are doing a review rather than just limiting it to their angles.

I think we are running in to way more of the Esse World Cup situations where he was vindicated days later. The VAR and/or CR may make a perfectly accurate decision that just seems wrong to the entire world, but it's based upon camera angles only they have access to. Doesn't make the VAR system or the referees look good even if they were 'right'.

 

The VAR's are mic'd up to the referee crew. They can also communicate with AR's who sometimes leave the flag down that way VAR can have a check at it. There are tons of silent checks as well. Another interesting facet is that communication weighs very heavily and the trust between Referee's and VAR's can play into referees' choosing to on field review something or not. When the referee's decide to take an on field review it is completely on the VAR to give them accurate information. So like I alluded to earlier VAR's are in essence a director, producer and editor of what referee's see. The referee's see 2 selected screens the VAR chooses.

not sure if I am regurgitating known information or not. I honestly haven't been looking much into how VAR operates. So if I am saying known information... ill stop.

 

Well that's just not true. How many times have you known as a referee you had a bad angle and may have made an incorrect decision? Plenty I'm sure. No different for an MLS referee who just made the best decision/guess possible based on the angle they had.

Sure we know the VAR is checking everything anyway, but that does not prevent a referee from telling the VAR to check something and even from a specific angle to help the VAR speed up their checks.

 

VAR still confuses me a bit in its application sometimes.

During DCU/ATL yesterday, early in the 2nd half, Greg Garza went in for a tackle on Paul Arriola near the edge of the penalty area. From what it appeared to me, the foul wasn't originally called, and the ball went int touch shortly thereafter. At that point, the VAR started talking to Sibiga in his earpiece; Sibiga soon made the review signal, and went to review it. I assume this was to verify whether the Garza tackle occurred inside the penalty area or not. After a quick review, Sibiga changed the decision to a foul (Garza got his leg in late and studs up on what was originally a clean tackle to really get Arriola), and gave Garza a yellow, and set up for a free kick outside the penalty area.

Was all this handled correctly? The foul was definitely outside the box, and it was close enough that I can see why review was called for that. But I'm still lost on the ability of the referee to give out a yellow in that situation, since I thought post review cards were (generally?) supposed to be reds.

Note that I've looked and I cannot find a video of this tackle. MLS's website does not include it in their condensed game or in the highlights package.

 

Once the review is initiated (by either VAR or referee) any outcome is possible. Review for placement of the foul would be factual and wouldn't require on field review. It was about the possible SFP. It deemed to not be RC worthy but sufficient for a YC.

 

They might have been reviewing to see if its a red card?

But once they review, they can hand out yellows as necessary. Not just a red if warranted.

 

One of these days, I'll eventually figure it all out! Thanks for the responses.

 

No can of worms there

And by then it will change . . .