I'm a Timbers fan so I'm not neutral, but I can't see that as a foul in any regard. To me, this is a clear and obvious error, and I believe VR did not work properly. I agree with @MassachusettsRef for the difference between the Unkel and Toledo examples, and have been explaining that to people, but to me, Toledo screwed up. In watching the implementation of VR, I remember at least another incident where VR had an error, Toledo took a look, said "nah," was about to walk away, took a look again, and still said "nah". He strikes me as someone that deeply wants to trust his eyes and not a replay. Which I get. But the result is that he seems unopen to an alternative outcome. So my question is - how does that ego-aspect get dealt with? To ref some of the best players in the world, you have to believe you are good enough to be there. And yet open enough to allow that you might have made a mistake. It's a curious combination of traits.
The problem with this analysis is that he did use VR to overturn the 2CT and award the penalty earlier. So it's just not true. I get where you're coming from. But rather than cast aspersions on Toledo (you're doing it somewhat lightly here; others have done it more strongly above), I just think it's his position that VAR is supposed to be conservatively applied. I look at that play, from behind the goal, and I cannot defend the penalty call as being correct. I'm pretty sure Toledo would take a similar approach, unless he saw something from the other side that contradicts what we can see on video. But I think he would take the position of that being life and that VAR is not supposed to be about re-refereeing subjective decisions. And he's right. The problem is that IFAB is telling referees that penalties are objective decisions that can be corrected. So there's disconnect and a lot of grey area. The earlier decision, in which a simulation call gets turned into a penalty, is easy to understand. Toledo would have told Stott that he saw a clear dive with no contact and, at that point, Stott would have said "I am recommending a review" since Toledo's decision is clearly wrong and he called something that fundamentally and objectively did not occur. In the second incident, if Toledo tells Stott he saw a coming together and Dwyer got pushed or charged to the ground in his opinion, Stott has a higher bar for recommending a review and due to either or both Stott's understanding of the purpose of VAR and Toledo's pre-game instructions, he opted not to recommend one. This is still an experiment. One that will probably stick around in some form permanently, but this is still the phase with a lot of growing pains. And when we compare apples to apples on a week-to-week basis, we can see some of them glaringly. Think back to Geiger's reversal of his own penalty call a few weeks ago. Most people praised this as correct. He thought he saw a 100% foul tackle and, after looking on replay, he determined the defender got more than enough of the ball to decide that "no-call" was the better decision even if one could defend a foul call within the Laws. The result was the preferred decision for both the referee and most non-partisan fans. Juxtapose that against Toledo yesterday where, due to a more conservative application of the VAR protocols, a very dubious penalty is not looked at again by the referee. Again, presuming Toledo didn't see something else from the other side, you're left with the decision that is not preferred by the referee and most neutral fans. Which approach is correct? I think a lot of people will reflexively say the one taken by Geiger, which is fair. But taking that position opens up a lot more potential penalties to review, which in turn leads to more delays and more subjective decisions being re-litigated. If we are looking for the preferred decision on all penalties and red cards, in a sport where many high-level referees regularly disagree on such calls precisely because they are so subjective, buckle up. Maybe that's the path we're destined to go down. Or maybe we go down the path we saw this weekend, which is where unless a penalty is 100% objectively wrong and the referee called something that completely didn't exist, the call stands. Or maybe the experiment leads to a happy medium. We don't know. I have my own doubts, which I've expressed from day one, that subjective penalty decisions can be better made by pretending they are objective situations. One of the problems we face right now is that the public doesn't know what is considered a good application of VR and what isn't--we simply hear propaganda from FIFA and the IFAB about how VARs are helping to get so many correct decisions.
It's not a problem, it's an impossibility. Like on-field referees, video assistant referees are human beings. Just as initial on-field penalty kick (and various other) decisions are subjective, so, too, are video review penalty kick decisions. Yes, I think the preferred decision is what fans/media/coaches/players/pundits expect the Video Review process to produce. But that's not what VR was designed to do. And going down that path would be an even bigger can of worms than the can that has been opened already - with the current can being based on what is a theoretically high bar of 'clear and obvious error.' I don't think there is a happy medium. At least, a happy medium will never be reached with respect to VR.
Do you have access to transcripts? I didn't think anyone but Stott and Toledo (ok, maybe a couple others) know exactly what was said between the CR and VAR. Stott could have said "you might want to review this" and Toledo replied "No I'm good" or Toledo could have asked if Stott if there was a need to review and he replied "No". My understanding is that the VAR can recommend a review, but the CR isn't compelled to take the advise. Just as some CRs don't want input from their ARs (Toledo is reportedly one of those refs). One of my biggest complaints about VAR is the complete lack of transparency. In rugby the conversation and videos being reviewed are broadcast, that would go a long way to help people understand what's happening and quell the conspiracy theories.
No, I do not have access to transcripts. Plenty do know and/or will know. There is an AVAR. There is the RO (replay operator). ARs and the 4th are on the same comms system. And everything is recorded for analysis of the experiment and the assessment of the VAR (and CR). At some point, every single CR and VAR in the league will likely be able to hear how this went down. The reason I'm relatively confident is that the IFAB, PRO and Howard Webb are drilling a standard set of words and phrases into the VARs. Stott is going to end a communication about this penalty with one of two phrases: either "check complete" or "I am recommending a review." Any other language is going to get him admonished and if it's too far off the reservation it's going to get points deducted on an assessment, which would likely result in failure. And any CR could reject a recommendation for review just as any CR could ignore an AR's flag or advice on a KMI. In that regard, you're technically right. But if a VAR says "I am recommending a review" and the CR does not go over to the monitor, the CR is going to have a big problem with PRO. So, in practice, no a CR cannot ignore a recommendation for an on-field review. No complaints from me here.
I don't believe this at all. I don't believe that a CR wouldn't ignore a recommendation and I don't believe that PRO would do a darn thing about it afterwards, but that goes back to the transparency, which PRO has never been known for.
As MassRef is one of the more knowledgeable posters when it comes to VAR and the protocol associated, as well as an understanding of the instruction given to the referees in PRO, I would probably believe what he has to say.
These officials are human and obviously some are more comfortable with others. It's completely possible to disregard a VAR.
A few MLS stadiums allow the use of smoke in a controlled manner. Orlando being one of them. Portland another.