The assignments for Week 4 of the 2018 Major League Soccer season: 03/24/2018 New England Revolution v New York City FC Gillette Stadium (1:30PM ET) REF: JAIR MARRUFO AR1: KYLE ATKINS AR2: CAMERON BLANCHARD 4TH: ROBERT SIBIGA VAR: CHRISTOPHER PENSO FC Dallas v Portland Timbers Toyota Stadium (3:30PM ET) REF: MARK GEIGER AR1: EDUARDO MARISCAL AR2: LOGAN BROWN 4TH: ALLEN CHAPMAN VAR: EDVIN JURISEVIC Columbus Crew v D.C. United MAPFRE Stadium (6PM ET) REF: DREW FISCHER AR1: JASON WHITE AR2: DANNY THORNBERRY 4TH: ALEX CHILOWICZ VAR: SILVIU PETRESCU New York Red Bulls v Minnesota United Red Bull Arena (7PM ET) REF: HILARIO GRAJEDA AR1: CRAIG LOWRY AR2: JONATHAN JOHNSON 4TH: JOSE CARLOS RIVERO VAR: JORGE GONZALEZ Colorado Rapids v Sporting Kansas City Dick’s Sporting Goods Park (9PM ET) REF: SORIN STOICA AR1: ANDREW BIGELOW AR2: OSCAR MITCHELL-CARVALHO 4TH: ALEJANDRO MARISCAL VAR: RICARDO SALAZAR Vancouver Whitecaps v LA Galaxy BC Place (10PM ET) REF: FOTIS BAZAKOS AR1: PETER BALCIUNAS AR2: ERIC WEISBROD 4TH: BALDOMERO TOLEDO VAR: DAVID GANTAR
Match counts for this week's referees and assistant referees: NE vs NYC: J Marrufo - 224th [K Atkins - 52nd, C Blanchard - 42nd] DAL vs POR: M Geiger - 175th [E Mariscal - 56th, L Brown - 37th] CLB vs DC: D Fischer - 82nd [J White - 60th, D Thornberry - 49th] NYR vs MIN: H Grajeda - 157th [C Lowry - 357th, Jo Johnson - 69th] COL vs SKC: S Stoica - 72nd [A Bigelow - 50th, O Mitchell-Carvalho - 54th] VAN vs LAG: F Bazakos - 72nd [P Balciunas - 147th, E Weisbrod - 63rd]
Drew Fischer had an interesting no-call in the DC/Columbus game. Studs up challenge by a Crew player that had already been booked. The AR was right on top of it and no call was given. Columbus then goes down the field and scored. Of course, Ben Olsen goes nuts. Does anyone have an idea why this play did not go to video review?
Because 2nd yellows can't be reviewed, unless the VAR feels it was clear and obvious error to not give a straight red.
How far back can they go on play leading to a goal? After the challenge, the Crew took the ball straight down field, crossed it, and a one touch finish in the back of the net. Granted, the challenge was 100 yards from goal, but the goal was scored maybe 15 seconds after the challenge.
Without seeing the play, that might not be the answer, though. If a suspected foul occurs at the beginning of (or during) the Attacking Phase of Play (APP) that leads to a goal or a penalty kick (or DOGSO call), then it is reviewable. That can mean something like a handball that leads directly to a goal, but it also can mean a foul that results in a change of possession that then leads toward a goal. The answer to the "how far back" question asked by @TheRealBilbo is "it's up to the referee and VAR" but it's supposed to be the phase of play while a team starts its move toward the opponent's penalty area. So a 90-yard counterattack can count, while 20 straight passes in the middle third with no real movement toward goal might not count. Again, though I didn't see the play yet, there are probably two viable answers. The first is that the VAR determined the foul did not occur during the APP. The second is that, though the alleged foul occurred during the APP, it was not deemed a "clear and obvious" foul by the VAR. The third option, of course, is that this got screwed up.
I wonder if the play will show up on Instant Replay. When I was watching the game live on TV yesterday, my first thought for the challenge was that it was a foul - it was a pretty terrible looking tackle by Abubakar on Acosta (not just for the studs up stuff - it was just an ugly lunge period). Of course, the MLS highlights packages are terrible now and do not show the challenge that led to the Columbus counter.
I’m still waiting for Simon Borg to make a triumphant return to the show. Probably won’t happen though.
Lawrence Olum wins the Doofus of the Week award for his idiotic attempt at a Hand of God goal for Portland against FC Dallas. Geiger nailed the call and showed no hesitation to issue the second caution.
The Crew were nice enough to post the video of the alleged foul on their Facebook page. Here is a link... https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10157448564324569 The first view, the view of the challenge is blocked by a United player. The second, I can't tell if he gets the ball or the player, or both. The other question is whether this is reviewable as the attacking phase of play leading to a goal. The challenge occurs right in front of the AR who has the best view of the play.
Thanks. That is definitely the start of the APP and I would say with 99.9%+ certainty that it was reviewed. The answer, per the VAR, is that the a no-call on this incident did not constitute a "clear and obvious" error. Given the high standards for what is supposed to be a clear and obvious error, that is probably defensible (the one replay we get doesn't clearly show contact). But, of course, the two problems are that A) is the standard always going to be that high in other matches (it wasn't last year) and B) such a high standard doesn't change the fact that 90%+ of people watching would probably call that a foul and, therefore, not calling it when we now have the benefit of replay is bothersome for many.
Even if there is no contact made, this is easily an "attempts to trip" situation, isn't it? And if not that, seems to be a pretty simple claim for handling, right? I'm surprised the VAR didn't have the referee go to the monitor here (assuming he didn't since nobody has mentioned it).
Go take another look at Lamah's goal for Dallas. Maxi Urruti is in an offside position and has to dodge the ball on its way towards goal. Seems to me he interfered with the goalkeeper.
And under what provision of Law 11 is dodging the ball active involvement? I don't ask to be a smart apple, but because the ongoing narrowing of active involvement means we have to tie back to the specific provisions of the Law. The old "God test" (would it have been different if the player was mystically removed) doesn't cut it anymore. If it didn't touch him, it cannot be interfering with play. So you have to identify one of the four specific ways in which a OSP player can interfere with an opponent.
If he has to dodge the ball, it stands to reason that the offside player is blocking the line of sight of the goalkeeper, which would come under "interfering with an opponent."
I'll disagree with that. If you look at this highlight video at 0:49, this view really shows the only one blocking his sight at the time the ball is played is the defender. Watching the keeper, he has no hesitation for diving and his attempt to play the ball doesn't change when the attacker in an OSP jumps over the ball.
I'm sure that's why the goal wasn't overturned. It's not clear and obvious that the attacker's positioning really interfered with the goalkeeper. That said, I don't think the VAR overturns an offside call here, either, had one been made.
It's a good goal.Don't overthink things. As one poster on here said so eloquently a while back, "no one wants to see how smart you are." No one expects this goal to be disallowed.
Another good point. No one for Portland seemed to think it should have been offside. That assumes anyone realized or suspected Urruti was in an OSP, but considering how often the defenders' arms go up when it's not even close, I'm sure someone noticed. But yeah, if the team supposedly interfered with isn't complaining, it's probably a good goal.
Putting on my PTFC hat, I shouted at the TV this was offside during the game. Further, at least one local commentator is talking about it. Here’s the frame (or as close as I could get it). A couple frames later, Urruti jumps over the ball as Lamah’s great strike whizzes toward goal.This is fairly straightforward “passive” offside. But the VAR apparently didn’t even give it a sniff. #RCTID pic.twitter.com/4EaADGYsMH— Chris Rifer (@ChrisRifer) March 26, 2018
Instant Replay is finally up and addressed the Abubakar challenge on Acosta in the Columbus vs DC United game. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/03/26/did-ben-olsen-have-right-be-arms-columbus-instant-replay It's the first play they discuss. They think it was a foul, think VAR should have been used, and Abubakar should have gotten a second yellow. It's also interesting to note that Abubakar didn't get the ball at all on the challenge, since Acosta nutmegged him prior to going flying to avoid getting hurt, unless you count the ball hitting his plant hand on the tackle as Abubakar getting the ball.
How often have you seen "attempting to trip" called at the professional level? And that's not a trick question. I know that, sometimes, it does get called. But with any sort of regular frequency? No. So saying that not calling such a foul is "clearly and obviously" wrong is a stretch. A claim, maybe, but to be honest I didn't even notice ball-hand contact when I watched it the first time. Again, doesn't seem like there is a case for clear and obvious handling. But that's the thing. The VAR is only supposed to have the referee go look at the monitor if the VAR already determined it was clearly and obviously a mistake to not call a foul. The system isn't designed, despite what we've seen in various places over the past year, for a "hey, this is debatable, you should come look at it." In this regard, if you accept Petrescu's determination that this was not clearly and obviously a foul, the system worked perfectly. Now, I can understand those who can't accept Petrescu's determination that this wasn't a clear and obvious mistake. I personally believe a foul should have been called on the field and I think I would lean toward determining it was clearly and obviously wrong if I was serving as VAR. This sort of incident is high on the list of things that I believe demonstrates the reach of VAR as it is currently constituted goes too far. This is reviewable, but maybe it shouldn't be. Because it opens up a whole can of worms on subjective foul decisions. The added bonus to this play is that, if a foul does get called via VR, there's really no plausible scenario for not giving a yellow card, which would have been a 2CT. So Petrescu's choice was to either let the goal stand for Columbus, despite there likely being a foul in the change of possession that led to that goal, or to recommend a review which would have led to a red card for Columbus if Fischer agreed with his recommendation. Is the game better or worse that we can now re-litigate these type of fouls? Is the referee's job harder or easier? These are legitimate questions that go far beyond the notion that access to technology inherently makes things better.