The assignments for Week 34 of the 2018 Major League Soccer season: 10/17/2018 Orlando City v Seattle Sounders Orlando City Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Mark Geiger AR1: Brian Poeschel AR2: Jose Da Silva 4TH: Rubiel Vazquez VAR: Christopher Penso D.C. United v Toronto FC Audi Field (7:30PM ET) REF: Allen Chapman AR1: Corey Rockwell AR2: Jason White 4TH: Marcos DeOliveira VAR: Edvin Jurisevic Vancouver Whitecaps v Sporting Kansas City BC Place (10PM ET) REF: Armando Villarreal AR1: Ian Anderson AR2: Chris Wattam 4TH: Joseph Dickerson VAR: Tim Ford 10/18/2018 Real Salt Lake v New England Revolution Rio Tinto Stadium (9PM ET) REF: Jair Marrufo AR1: Jeffrey Greeson AR2: Adam Garner 4TH: Nima Saghafi VAR: Alex Chilowicz 10/21/2018 Atlanta United v Chicago Fire Mercedes-Benz Stadium (3PM ET) REF: Drew Fischer AR1: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho AR2: Cameron Blanchard 4TH: Jose Carlos Rivero VAR: Allen Chapman D.C. United v New York City FC Audi Field (3PM ET) REF: Chico Grajeda AR1: Kyle Atkins AR2: Eric Weisbrod 4TH: Christopher Penso VAR: Younes Marrakchi Montreal Impact v Toronto FC Stade Saputo (3PM ET) REF: Baldomero Toledo AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Andrew Bigelow 4TH: Rubiel Vazquez VAR: Jorge Gonzalez Orlando City v Columbus Crew Orlando City Stadium (3PM ET) REF: Kevin Stott AR1: Kevin Klinger AR2: Eduardo Mariscal 4TH: Marcos DeOliveira VAR: Caleb Mendez Philadelphia Union v New York Red Bulls Talen Energy Stadium (3PM ET) REF: Ted Unkel AR1: Adam Wienckowski AR2: Logan Brown 4TH: Silviu Petrescu VAR: Jon Freemon FC Dallas v Sporting Kansas City Toyota Stadium (5PM ET) REF: Robert Sibiga AR1: Jason White AR2: Peter Manikowski 4TH: Guido Gonzales Jr. VAR: Alex Chilowicz Houston Dynamo v Seattle Sounders BBVA Compass Stadium (5PM ET) REF: Dave Gantar AR1: Jeff Hosking AR2: Felisha Mariscal 4TH: Victor Rivas VAR: Armando Villarreal Los Angeles FC v Vancouver Whitecaps Banc of California Stadium (5PM ET) REF: Nima Saghafi AR1: Corey Rockwell AR2: Mike Rottersman 4TH: Ramy Touchan VAR: Jair Marrufo Minnesota United v LA Galaxy TCF Bank Stadium (5PM ET) REF: Alan Kelly AR1: Jeremy Hanson AR2: Matthew Nelson 4TH: Fotis Bazakos VAR: Geoff Gamble Portland Timbers v Real Salt Lake Providence Park (5PM ET) REF: Ismail Elfath AR1: Ian Anderson AR2: Chris Wattam 4TH: Alejandro Mariscal VAR: Edvin Jurisevic San Jose Earthquakes v Colorado Rapids Avaya Stadium (5PM ET) REF: Tim Ford AR1: Michael Kampmeinert AR2: Apolinar Mariscal 4TH: Joseph Dickerson VAR: Christina Unkel
Somebody please explain how Orlando's goal against Seattle was allowed to stand. The player receiving making the cross (Sutter) was clearly offside when he received the ball prior to making the cross, and not only did the AR fail to make the correct call on the pitch, but it wasn't even reviewed either by the VAR or by the CR (Geiger) on the field.
Are you basing your conclusion off the single angle the MLS site is currently showing on its website? Or were more angles presented? Because that’s not obviously offside. It might be offside. But it might not be. That angle is incredibly deceptive; look at the goal line and goal area line to try to figure out the proper offside line.
Maybe there is a different angle that shows it's closer than it looks, but this looks about as "clearly off" as you can have. You guys are more than welcome to draw in the lines, but this looks clearly off. Look at the penalty spot for reference. Deepest Seattle defender is not even with the penalty spot. The Orlando attacker is past the penalty spot and closer to the goal line. MLS VARs still having a hard time with offside... I have no idea this isn't offside.
Show that screenshot with the goal area line and the goal line, though. That alone makes it look infinitely closer.
My issue isn't with the call on the field, since AR's have been instructed to keep the flag down if they are in doubt and let the play be reviewed by VAR afterwards. It's the fact that it wasn't even reviewed/looked at by VAR, or if it was, they still got the call wrong. Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome of the game, but it could have.
This is my attempt at the fancy line drawing thing. I guessed a little on the defender's back foot positioning. It's a lot closer than it appears.
Exactly. The assumption that the VAR got this wrong based on that one replay when they have access to a ton more camera angles is that... only an assumption. Again, this still may have been offside. You could show me modeling that puts this a few inches offside. But it also could have been onside. Will be interested to learn more about it.
I don't believe that is the instruction at all. The instruction is to delay the OS flag so that an erroneous OS call does not prevent a goal. If the AR thought it was OS, he should have raised the flag later.
I know there are multiple angles that the VAR has that we don't see. I'm even willing to concede that it is closer than it looks, but this still pretty obviously offside. Look at Dom Dwyer at the top (the actual goal scorer). We can all agree that he is clearly in an offside position in that picture. I think it is also safe to assume that #21 of Orlando is much closer to being even/inline with Dwyer than he is with any Seattle defender. Oh, and the line drawn lines up with #21's right foot (closer to the goal line) rather than his left foot. If another angle comes out that proves me wrong and shows me that it's closer or onside than this one, then I'll eat it, but right now this is as bad of a VAR offside miss in MLS as I've seen.
This is a very black-and-white statement. You're dealing with a low-positioned camera. Much like a high-positioned camera throws things off, a low-positioned camera does the same. Even with the rudimentary lines previously drawn, you're still saying it's "as bad of a VAR offside miss in MLS as I've seen"....wild.
It will be interesting to see if this shows up in Week in Review . . . looks like a perfect candidate whether the call was right or wrong (and the AR week in review has not been shy about pointing out errors)
Disagree Agree Disagree ...As it should? What am I missing here in your comment? I think this angle is good enough, if you really study it instead of glancing at it, assuming that you can draw a vertical line that connects the SEA defenders, and claiming that is the correct perspective. Disagree You're glancing at it instead of analyzing it. Listen, this camera is about 16 yards out from the end line. It's low. You can't ignore any of that. The deepest defender for Seattle is the African-American player on the far side. If we don't agree on that, then please re-evaluate the images. He has a foot that is poking out around the other defender's (near the penalty spot) shorts. I feel strongly that if the 2-D red line is drawn to the 3-D ground, as @OffsideModeling does on twitter, it will show that the shoulder/foot of the defender is directly above the 2-D line that is drawn here. As in the Portland-Houston game a month ago, looks can be deceiving.
Model shows that @scott_sutter was offside by about 11"Biggest problem is that you cannot see the 2LD's leg in the one shot that you can also see Sutter. I had to make a guess.Still quite sure he's offside, though, as the only way he would not be is if you could see 2LD foot pic.twitter.com/UVHPcLYTBU— SoccerPhotogrammetry AKA "A Nice Gentleman" (@OffsideModeling) October 18, 2018
I'll also add that I find these types of OS decisions the most difficult. Because the attacker is so close to you, you have to be 100% exact in your positioning. Any slight angle difference makes the offense (or lack thereof) much worse. So yes, VAR should have taken a look, but I feel for the AR in this situation.
VAR did take a look as they do on all goals. Determination that it wasn’t clearly wrong to not call it offside. So no further action taken. Remember MLS doesn’t have the same technology as FIFA (though they do have more angles than what you’re seeing). This was possibly/probably offside. But if it’s not enough to overturn as clearly wrong, then the “check complete” conclusion is how this ends. AR made the expected call here. VAR worked correctly. It all still might have resulted in a decision that was technically wrong if the 100% objectively accurate decision can be determined, but that’s the system we have right now.
I don't know what's in the pipeline as far as improving VAR, but technology like what was used at the World Cup for offside has to be in the conversation at minimum. Obviously, I don't know the cost or how many more cameras are required, but limited number of cameras is ALSO a problem that needs to be addressed so maybe we can fix both? Not that this sequence was handled incorrectly, but it doesn't sit well with a lot of people because it looks, at first glance, more obvious than the LA goal disallowed last week. But as we know, that offside was only considered clear and obvious because it just so happened to occur right next to the goal area line. We need to be able to make the objectively correct call more often than not, and currently we're very limited by the technology available or the good fortune of the position on the field or a national broadcast with a goal line cam, etc.
For the umpteenth time, "clear and obvious" doesn't apply to offside calls. Those are supposed to be objective calls (ie, offside or not).
Sort of. But referees and their instructors can only work with the technology and information available. In a case like the Galaxy situation, where the goal area and camera angle could inform the VAR that the goal scorer was 100% offside by about 2 inches, then the “objective” standard works. In this case, barring a conclusive camera angle PRO wants the “clearly wrong” standard to apply. They don’t want VARs guessing what the “correct” decision is if it can’t be objectively determined. That was @ManiacalClown ’s point.