I suspect that Elfath didn't catch the point of contact in real time and that's the main thing that triggered the review, but that's guesswork on my part.
Factual review in Portland cancels out a Minnesota goal. Correct decision. Took a couple minutes from "goal" to restart, presumably to check multiple angles to account for distortion.
I'd like to see a better angle. I'm not convinced this was the correct decision. I was struggling to get the correct frame from ESPN+, so this one is a frame or two too late. The ball is in the yellow square. The red line is the position of the ball when it was played.
Ya and zero attempt at the ball with the sweeping left leg. Be fine writing that up as VC instead of SFP. Not that MLS cares about suspensions or anything though.
I’m a DC fan and I was at that game last night. After seeing the replay on the Jumbotron, even I agreed with Elfath.
As a DC fan, i was very relieved to see the initial yellow. He only spent a few seconds looking at the video, so to me, that fits “clear and obvious.” I just want to add that to me, the replay looked much worse than the live play.
Nah. He’s a spirited player, the team is off to an awful start, and he was trying to win back possession.
Terrible, terrible miss in he NE-Dal match. Hedges just walloped a Rev in the box late in the match, 100% stone peno.
A good use of VAR in the Atlanta game which took away a goal after an offside player interfered with the goalkeeper.
I really don't like the one-armed advantage signal. Oh and I also think they shoulda had that offside call on Martinez even without the VAR. But they got it right in the end. Unfortunately.
I don’t think so. It happen very close to where I was sitting. From my perspective, it was just a dumb, late challenge that was well deserving of a red because of the studs/Achilles contact.
Anybody have any idea what was clear and obvious enough about the handling in PA that was overturned in SKC v Seattle?
The ball deflected off of the body of the defender and onto the arm, which was in an appropriate position to avoid contact on the initial block. Had it gone straight off the arm, it's a penalty all day, and I suspect that's what the AR (Greeson) thought happened, but his view was slightly blocked. The video would not have matched the referees' account of the foul, and to be perfectly frank, there's very little chance PRO wants a handling call on this play.
I couldn't see a deflection off of the body first from the angle on the replay I saw. However, I did see the FIFA instruction that sliding is considered "taking a risk" and therefore should be penalized even if it's ball to hand (or non-deliberate).
I don't understand why you think it was the wrong call. Based on this image his entire leg and head are well ahead of the ball.
While I won't rehash my personal crusade against getting people to understand that when the camera is elevated and upfield, it gives the illusion that parts of the body above the ground are in an offside position when in reality they are not. If you want to double check this, recreate the position of the "offside" attacker with yourself at home. When you've just landed on one foot, your knee, shoulders, and head will be directly above your foot. That's where you need the core of your body to be to keep balanced and push off for your next stride. If we had a camera along the penalty spot, you'd see the foot, knee, and head all vertically aligned.
Here's an image showing an example of the effect. For whatever reason, this type of camera angle being used to say a players upper body was offside has been something I've been on a mission to inform people of recently. Especially with VAR increasing in use. Hopefully the VAR and their assistants know about it too. When a player is sprinting and has their chest and head vertical (e.g. your standard running position), the foot or the knee is almost always what needs to be looked at. Thankfully they're closest to the ground and subject to the least projection error. EDIT: After looking at the last two posts, I guess I failed to not rehash my personal crusade.
While I get what your saying, the two people in the two different pictures are running in very different ways. In the pic above yellows back is very straight therefore his head will be above his front foot. In the original image the white player is leaning forward. His back is almost the same angle as his trailing leg, like when leaning forward for a sprint. Compared to the green defender just behind who's back is more upright (like the yellow player). I just got into a similar position and my head was about 8" further than my front foot. Here's a better angle (excuse my 1-minute MSPaint skills)
With that frame, I'm more understanding of the offside call. ESPN+ video player makes it a lot harder to stop at certain frames than other sites. However, in that case I'd still argue it's his left knee that's closest to the goal line.
Hi bubba- I think they actually did. I was just watching this on the dvr tonight and the AR doesn’t run up. He ran back to the corner flag and statued. Perhaps he did so as a matter of course since Martinez was PIOP and close to the gk when the shot was taken, and knew that the VAR would’ve able to tell if Johnson was contacted or visually screened from the shot.