Not referee related, but more MLS related. We just saw one of the by products of MLS' rapid and, in my opinion, unhealthy expansion. MLS might be the only league in the world that has an odd amount of teams in it (23). That means every weekend match day one team won't be playing. In the course of the regular season that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But it will matter come next weekend. Real Salt Lake's regular season ended today with a loss. They are currently 6th in the final playoff spot with 49 points while the team they are battling for that last spot is LA Galaxy who have 48 points. The only problem is that LA have one more game to play next weekend, while Salt Lake is sitting at home, where all the games have simultaneous kick-offs to prevent collusion like in the world cup. The last weekend of the season is called "Decision Day" in MLS. Only problem is that one of your teams who is battling for a play-off spot on decision day is done with the season. It would be the equivalent of Newcastle United battling against relegation only not to be involved in the last match day of the season. MLS seemingly goes against the grain of the way leagues are run around the world on purpose.
While I'm generally a big fan of Robert Sibiga, I think he missed a pretty obvious DOGSO or SFP red at the end of the SKC-Dallas game. Russell crosses the ball on the byline between the penalty area line and the goal area line running parallel with the touchline, and Salloi is ready to tap it in from three yards out. Pedroso desperately tries to make a sliding challenge and wipes out Salloi from behind. Pedroso received a caution, but I sure think it was a SFP red and, if not SFP, definitely a DOGSO red. No attempt to play the ball, almost straight from behind, and it seemed two-footed to me (although I could be wrong about that as I only saw one replay). Pedroso was not malicious or intentional, just trying anything he possibly could to stop the goal. I realize Sibiga probably thought he could get away with a caution in a 2-0 game with a penalty coming up, which is why he likely went with a caution. However, I'd really like to see that be a red to keep that kind of play out of the game.
A replay would be useful here. It if was truly as obvious as you’re suggesting, then there are two possible different reasons for the VAR to intervene. The fact he didn’t means two MLS referees are disagreeing with you, rather than one. That doesn’t make you wrong, of course. But it would definitely be surprising—and maybe problematic for both officials.
If you start watching the video at the top of this link at 1:38 or so, you’ll see the play. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2018-10-21-fc-dallas-vs-sporting-kansas-city/recap I’d love to hear the communication between Sibiga and VAR just as a teaching point. If they agreed on a caution, I’d like to see why just to learn their reasoning. It ultimately made zero difference in the game, and as I mentioned I think Sibiga is a really good official. This one just wasn’t a call I was expecting.
Yellow card is the appropriate call here. The challenge was not two footed, and the player is trying to swipe at the ball.
Not for me. If he lunges at him with two feet and makes contact with the studs, then it's a different story.
So, I don’t see anything close to SFP there. Also remember it’s not the VAR and referee “agreeing on a caution.” It’s the VAR informing the referee that “only” giving a yellow is not “clearly wrong.” The standard for a VAR telling a referee he should give an SFP red is supposed to be very high. Also the DOGSO question is irrelevant. It’s would be classified as an attempt to play the ball. If it’s DOGSO, it’s yellow. Sure, there are some referees out there who might go red on this. But there’s no way a VAR should try to turn a yellow into red here.
Appreciate the discussion and constructive feedback. I can see where I may have been too harsh. When I watched the play, my initial thought at live speed was that there was no attempt to play the ball. I can see where I was wrong with that assessment. I also used poor word choice on “agree on a caution”. I should know better. Sibiga is one of my favorite MLS referees. I watched him live when SKC played Minnesota in August and thought he was great that night.
My question is why are we not seeing those "extra camera angles"? What cameras are they using? Why aren't they available to the broadcast? Why can't we hear the discussions? When there are decisions being made (or not made) that have big impacts on the game the fans should be in the loop. The secrecy of it all makes it seem like they cover up the mistakes of the on field crew more often than not. Though that assumptions is probably wrong, transparency would most likely help in the acceptance of VAR.
The most likely place to see an analysis of that decision is in PRO's Week in Review for ARs. Which, if they address this play, would focus on why the AR likely made a mistake. (The most recent Review is still week 32--timing has been erratic on them this year.)
This week's Instant Replay (https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/10/22/should-spying-ref-result-yellow-card-instant-replay) reviews one incident in the Atlanta game which they feel was incorrectly called. The hosts argue that the call was clear handling and should have been a penalty. I'm curious what your take is on: 1) the handling call (lack thereof) 2) more importantly, the hosts blatant questioning (and not for the first time) of referees integrity in consistently giving Atlanta the benefit of the doubt on big calls. I personally feel that as MLS employees they do a massive disservice to the game with this rhetoric, but I'm interested in your opinions about this.
I think that was a hand ball. In fact, it struck me as very similar to the penalty France received after VAR intervention in the WC final. The conventional wisdom is that VAR was more hesitant to intervene in the WC, and more over-used (and ultimately overturned) in the MLS. But this was a play that in the WC would have been reviewed. It's worth arguing too that before the WC...not sure how widespread that call would be, but it certainly is expected now (Instant Replay being a great example of that). In other words, I think three years ago, that might not have been called. But now I think the call is expected. As for Atlanta at home... this has been whispered among players now for most of the season. Atlanta is an insane place to play, and when it is loud, it is very very loud. Its not like referees are instructed to make calls go ATL's way or anything (that is crazy conspiracy theory stuff), but there is a feeling that they are told if they are going to make a game changing call like a penalty or send-off, they need to be extra triple-dog certain before it is against a home team in front of a massive crowd. That has a cumulative effect. I also think (and I've said this a few times here so forgive my repetition), that Unkel's over-turned red card in Orlando their first season has had a trickle down effect. Referees have in the back of their mind this nagging doubt that if they make critical call against Atlanta or Orlando, the league is just as likely as not to throw the ref under the bus. All that said though, not many people take the refereeing comments on Instant Replay seriously. Even the officials themselves don't really care. Nobody wants to have a missed call highlighted, everybody knows now that those two guys speak as two former players. It's more along the lines of Charles Barkley berating the refs. Its entertainment but people don't think it is serious, and even casual fans assume there are things those guys don't know about the laws.
PRO Week in Review nominates the AR as one of the two for "call of the week" for not flagging this, with lines to support the call. Jeff Greeson nails a thru ball that leads to a Real Salt Lake goal and Brian Poeschel keeps his flag down on an offside decision that is just too close to raise the flag, both correctly giving benefit of doubt to the attack. In Orlando it certainly looks offside, but the camera angle can be deceptive so we have included the two still images below, to show just how close it was. https://www.proassistantreferees.com/week-in-review/2018/5/12/mls-week-32-october-6-7-62wwr
The problem is that it's been proven that the attacker is offside by 1 foot... Look earlier in the thread.
If you look at the two still frames, they are slightly different. The one PRO is showing is from the correct frame as per the Laws (which is when the initial touch occurs, as clarified this year). The frame from earlier in the thread is late (as the ball is coming off the foot). The tweet mentions that the only way it could be onside is if you could see the 2LD's foot. In the PRO frame, you can just barely see it (though it's not 100% clear). Again, absent super precise lines and the ability to correct for lens distortions, etc., this is too close to call — especially with the frame that PRO used.