Watching this live (I was standing above the section right behind the goal) I was shaking my head at what I thought was a clear attempt to make contact and dive instead of trying to beat the defender. On replay though its a lot closer to a PK than I first thought. I will say that whomever the CR was on Saturday had one of the highest foul thresholds I've seen in a while. I don't think he blew his whistle for the first 20 minutes of the match. There were no fouls, corners, or even goal kicks in that time. There was a sequence in the first 5 minutes I thought for sure VAR was going to turned into a PK for SJ that also didn't even get sent down.
After PRO did some mental gymnastics to figure out how to explain away the VAR handling decision that went against Portland last week, they were expecting a VAR review. After all there apparently doesn't have to be video showing any hand to ball contact any more as long as the player has his hands up. They set up the call by stating the obvious: " Mabiala extended both arms out ahead of him in an unorthodox move which left him extremely vulnerable to being penalized if the ball struck either arm." Then they explained that the VAR used multiple angles to determine the the ball struck is arm. The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't line up with the actual VAR video that was released(http://proreferees.com/2019/08/09/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-22/ ) So, using that explanation (arm up in unnatural position) and the fact that the ball obviously struck the defender's hand, it should have also been called and given as a penalty. Was the defender's arm up before he headed the ball? No, did it rise up in reaction to the header not clearing the ball efficiently, yes. Clear penalty.
There's no mental gymnastics in their explanation. In fact, they generally are using the language we are taught to use. In this example from the Minnesota game, he jumps between the attacking player and the goal with both arms out unnaturally from the body — both above shoulder height and in front of him. While this decision would be the same under old laws and new laws, I'm going to use the new laws — as their framework is slightly clearer. If we were using new laws, it is (usually) an offense if the arms make the body unnaturally bigger (outside the "natural playing silhouette") or if the arms are above shoulder height. In this case, both of those explanations apply. Why are the arms there? Are they there for balance? (No.) Are they there as a barrier? (Yes.) The player is taking a risk by doing this and was penalized. As for whether or not the video shows it hitting the arm, multiple angles show this. Playing them synced up makes it even more obvious. The DAZN / MLS Live announcers said it hit the arm when they watched the replay in the live game. This is a pretty easy decision for the VAR if they can get confirmation that it hit the arm — which they did — and Penso went with it pretty quickly when he saw the same angles. In the Portland/Vancouver example, the defenders arms never quite get up above shoulder height. But — perhaps more relevant here — is that the ball is headed by the defender into his own arms. I'm going to again cite the new laws, as many of the interpretations that have been codified in the new laws have been the interpretations taught at the top levels for awhile now... It is *not* usually an offense if the ball strikes an arm of a player off of a deliberate play by said player. This is what happens here. Also, his arm is not up as a barrier — the ball is headed away from goal anyway. The arm is up for balance and because he was pushed from behind by the attacker. Under the new laws and common interpretation, this is not a handball. And this season under old laws, while it certainly *could* be called, it's definitely not a clear error to say "play on".
Here's the disallowed goal in LA vs NYRB. I dunno... Foul or nah? VAR overturns LAFC's third goal after ruling a foul was committed and we're still tied up in the second half. pic.twitter.com/eowB1vh89l— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) August 12, 2019
So? Even more of a reason to give appropriate discipline. They are not only being disrespectful towards Unkel and his crew but also the other refs on the previous games.