Truthfully, I would prefer a longer check, even if it leads to a decision that goes against my team, because then I'll know (or assume?) the officials used all the angles at their disposal to come to the best possible decision. And while you may disagree with this point, I do wonder if, to "sell" potentially controversial calls more, that the referee should take a look at the play on the monitor, even if it's just for the optics of it all. For a lot of fans, if the referee doesn't go to the monitor to take a look, they're not going to know that the play was reviewed behind the scenes.
Their argument is simple. The camera frame shows that it's as close as it can be without being completely over the line, and since they know that the ball must have moved farther into the goal during that 1/60th of a second, even if it moved a millimeter, then they can consider it a clear goal.
PRO has come out and said that the 2nd "goal" should have been awarded in the game on Sunday, DC vs Por.
Though, I'll take my award of Internet Points for being correct that it should have gone to review, and Salazar made a quick rush to judgement without getting all the information at his disposal. Like I said, I can see letting the call on the field stand; there's enough evidence for that, but at least we wouldn't have the whole "WTF how could he not review it?" argument.
I’ll concede you win the award for being in agreement with what PRO wants on this. I was about to write that there’s no way FIFA or any other body would want this reviewed on-field with conflicting evidence (because nothing would be “clear,”) but then I realized GLT exists most elsewhere in competitions that have VAR so the point is moot. It’s also a moot point because this is supposed to be an objective decision. In other competitions this NEVER gets reviewed even without GLT—the VAR either tells the referees it’s a goal or says the evidence doesn’t show a clear goal. I think PRO is setting a bad standard here and not in line with what IFAB wants. To use another example, let’s say there’s a close out of bounds for a throw-in but the AR says it’s in and it leads to a goal. If there is then conflicting video evidence with some angles showing the ball out but some showing it in, the point of having a VAR is not for him to say “this could go either way, I’m letting the referee look again.” Literally, he’s only supposed to intervene if the decision to play on is 100% wrong. Yet based on the argument PRO is espousing here, they want him sending the info down to give the referee a second crack. That is not how VAR is supposed to work. But as more countries decide to do their own thing (looking at you, England) it’s going to be harder to expect adherence to the protocols league to league. So we get situations like this where PRO ends up telling its referees to do something they aren’t supposed to do according to IFAB and FIFA.
Yeah, this gets into a larger discussion about VAR and the philosophy that attempting to get everything correct is always virtuous. We had these debates a lot in 2016-17. I just think there’s a point where you’re changing the game too much for it to be worth it; a point where you can get more things correct but actually make the enjoyment of watching the game worse. I think we are already there or getting close But completion authorities aren’t there yet (other than the FA in England). Eventually there will be a reckoning. It’s an issue in other sports, too (expansion of review in NFL, the end of NBA games, the limitations in NHL) so it’s a concept that everyone will need to grapple with. I think it might be more about society than sport, really.
I agree with you, that's not how it's supposed to work, but the PRO review shows Salazar didn't even reference the other camera angle; he may not even have been aware that there was conflicting information, and PRO does correctly point out that the frame upon which the determination rested didn't contain the information required to make the determination. VAR guidelines should address that so as to leave it up to the CR. Whether that happens or not, we'll see. We understand that refs are physically incapable of seeing everything, and it's better for VAR to augment that in a consistent fashion. If there are still subjective determinations to be made (and there have been with VAR, repeatedly) let that be on the CR, around whom the majority of the subjectivity should center anyway.
PRO's desired outcome here is probably for the red to be given, so they can then overturn it on appeal. That way all the bases are covered.