Two things. If any video showed clearly that it only hit the chest, the VAR would have recommended reversing the decision. That didn’t happen. Second, for a shot like this, the standard should be whether the ball was likely on frame. But for the sake of learning—since the question was originally asked in that spirit—let’s not forget that handling to deny a dribble or a chip or any other forward progress to goal would also be DOGSO here.
while we're on the subject of GK's fouls... NYRB GK Robles takes down his opponent https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...ed-bulls-vs-chicago-fire/details/video/150010 and only sees yellow. This is interesting to me because the player is already past him and essentially he just grabs the guy's foot to keep him from scoring. I think it's hard to argue he's making a play on the ball. I suppose you might argue that the ball is fairly far away from the player?
At full speed, it can be hard to tell where exactly it hit Howard, but there's a slowed-down replay that was shown on the Rapids broadcast and it's clear as day that it went off his arm.
This is classic DOGSO-yellow. I argued this with a USL ref (with the same perspective as you) and finally he just said, "FIFA wants this a yellow. Stop arguing and give the yellow." I shut up and got the message. So that's what FIFA/IFAB wants here.
I think that's right. We want GKs to be able to make plays. Here, the GK is diving as soon as the ball is played to his right. He has to dive before he knows how far it is going. While it may look like a take down, he is going towards the ball in the only way he can. I think yellow is the right call in the spirit of the changes.
I had a similar one come up on another forum where people argued this type of play should be a red. But look at it from the GKs perspective. You're basically stationary and flat footed waiting for the attacker to make the first move and then you need to react very quickly. It doesn't take much of an error to look like a complete fool who didn't try to play the ball even if you did.
I just watched again on MLS Live. Reyna and Juarez are both visible when Stott pulls the yellow you are talking about, so it can't be either of them. Stott points to an area off-screen but you can see about 7 Vancouver plays at this point so you can start to do process of elimination. I am actually pretty sure that he was just showing the card to Waston again. Either he forgot (unlikely) or he was going out of his way to show Waston the card so that everyone saw it happened, which likely didn't happen in the first place (and Stott being Stott, would have both recognized this and not concerned himself with the fact that showing the card to Waston twice was "wrong.") EDIT to say it's entirely possible a fourth Vancouver player got this yellow and it's not noted on the MLS site yet. But I'm certain the yellow wasn't to Reyna or Juarez.
Yes. This was 100% handling. If you don't trust your eyes, trust the muted protest from Howard. He knew he was guilty of touching the ball with his hand and was simply trying to negotiate--probably trying to split some hairs and game Dickerson. No goalkeeper walks that easily if the ball didn't actually touch his hand and certainly not Tim Howard. Johnson made a great spot here and Dickerson handled the administration of the card very well.
I didn't watch the game I just saw the highlights. I thought it was odd that Dickerson walked over to his AR when they're mic'd up. Was it necessary for show? Or simply a move to keep players away so he can hear clearly the info from the AR and maybe VAR?
His first ever red card, in his second match, and it's on Howard. I'm sure part of it was to get buy-in and I'd guess part of it would have to do with his crew telling him to slow down and process it all before acting rashly. He sent Howard off and Howard looked like he actually respected him. It wasn't textbook, but I think ultimately it couldn't have gone much better.
I was curious to see if there was something else the assistant was trying to communicate, mostly bc the highlight vid has a cut. It seems logical for him to get that right and there is some level of buy-in considering his assistant is the one to raise his flag.
Don't underestimate the fact that things are loud and he could be getting a lot of information at once, too. Walking halfway to the assistant just so he can visually see him mouth "red, 100%" while he hears it in his ear goes a long way to reassuring a referee in a situation like this.
My guess: this was a game control decision, to let everyone know that Watson did indeed get cautioned. The announcers apparently missed it the first time around too, because when he showed the card again they said, "That's exactly right!" I think that was most likely a piece of veteran officiating there, and lets everyone know "after video review, everyone has been adequately dealt with."
Totally. That's what I thought the volume of the stadium. Do you think he'll be marked down for the PK decision with VAR? It's on the full highlights. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-lake-vs-colorado-rapids/details/video/150284
No. The scoring for referees (and ARs) now that VAR is in place means they get +1 for every situation where they use VAR to get a KMI correct. The standard scoring for KMIs still exists (-3 for an "expected" KMI wrongly given; -1 for a "difficult" KMI wrongly given). So if this was a difficult KMI, it's -1 for missing it and +1 for using VAR to get it right. It's a wash. Only if this were deemed an "expected" KMI would he get points off. Since there were so many bodies in the way and the handling was well-disguised, that would be very, very harsh.
Interesting. Is the +1 only if they reverse with VAR, or does in include going to VAR, confirming their call, and being right?
It’s only for a reversal from an incorrect to correct decisions. It’s a safety net to get that point back. If they confirm an already correct call, there’s no point to get back. But the VAR’s score suffers for sending down a bad review.
I know it's his second game and all and he doesn't want to step on toes, but how is there not a caution for dissent after the PK for handling via VAR in the Real Salt Lake game? If that's not dissent after a VAR decision, then can you have one? It's textbook dissent of a correct decision. We as referees need to help our selves sometimes and there was a classic case of helping ourselves.
The dissent on this one made me wonder if refs at this level ever receive apologies when players see the highlights. I wouldn't expect it at lower levels because 1) lack of replays and 2) lack of familiarity with who the refs are, but in this case, there's a pair of Rapids players who really went at the ref and the replay is oh-so-clear.
I'm sure it has happened, but I doubt it happens that frequently or that often. As many players will you tell, "it's not personal ref" or "it's all part of the game." Look at Buffon, it's been weeks since he made an ass of himself on the field and off the field of a perfectly reasonable and correct decision and he still hasn't backed down. He insulted Oliver's character and person and showed no remorse. If Buffon won't back down, I doubt some MLS player on a meaningless, irrelevant April MLS match will go up to the referee and say "sorry I dissented on that penalty call in Salt Lake, you were spot on."