The assignments for Week 4 of the 2019 Major League Soccer season: 03/23/19 FC Dallas vs Colorado Rapids Toyota Stadium (5:30PM ET) REF: Christopher Penso AR1: Jeff Hosking AR2: Cory Richardson 4TH: Rubiel Vazquez VAR: Tim Ford AVAR: Jonathan Johnson New York Red Bulls vs Orlando City Red Bull Arena (7:30PM ET) REF: Allen Chapman AR1: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho AR2: Mike Rottersman 4TH: Nima Saghafi VAR: Alejandro Mariscal AVAR: Logan Brown Philadelphia Union vs Columbus Crew Talen Energy Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Ramy Touchan AR1: Kyle Atkins AR2: Adam Wienckowski 4TH: Armando Villarreal VAR: Edvin Jurisevic AVAR: Kathryn Nesbitt Los Angeles FC vs Real Salt Lake Banc of California Stadium (10:30PM ET) REF: Ismail Elfath AR1: Jeffrey Greeson AR2: Felisha Mariscal 4TH: Baldomero Toledo VAR: Alex Chilowicz AVAR: Cameron Blanchard 03/24/19 New England Revolution vs FC Cincinnati Gillette Stadium (4:00PM ET) REF: Joe Dickerson AR1: Nick Uranga AR2: Claudiu Badea 4TH: Robert Sibiga VAR: Jorge Gonzalez AVAR: Thomas Supple
Not sure how you'll account for this--and I know you know it--but important to keep in mind that Supple, Patlak, Parra, Schaap and possibly other names (if they keep getting assigned this season) had a ton of AVAR assignments before they were deemed to be part of the officiating team. If you want to count them, it looks like Supple had 13, Schaap 17, Parra 7, and Patlak had 18 (all prior to the formal publication of AVAR assignments by PRO) though those numbers could be off.
I'm not counting anything prior to September or so when the AVARs were granted the duties defined by the protocols. They were apparently acting as Video Review Communicators (albeit with the AVAR title) before then.
It was a mix. Some matches had both an AVAR and VRC--others just an AVAR (at least in title). But I think you're making a judicious decision. Plus, they are your records, after all!
I make the rules in this town! But yeah, because of the inconsistency in the position before September, I felt it made sense to have that delineation.
#MLSRefStats@FCDallas vs @ColoradoRapidsREF: Chris PENSO - 146th gameAR1: Jeff HOSKING - 140thAR2: Cory RICHARDSON - 3rd4TH: Rubiel VAZQUEZ - 56thVAR: Tim FORD - 15thAVAR: Jonathan JOHNSON - 9th#DALvCOL #DTID #Rapids96— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 22, 2019 #MLSRefStats@NewYorkRedBulls vs @OrlandoCitySCREF: Allen CHAPMAN - 139th gameAR1: Oscar MITCHELL-CARVALHO - 79thAR2: Mike ROTTERSMAN - 113th4TH: Nima SAGHAFI - 72ndVAR: Alejandro MARISCAL - 1stAVAR: Logan BROWN - 5th#RBNYvORL #RBNY #FaceOfCity— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 22, 2019 #MLSRefStats@PhilaUnion vs @ColumbusCrewSCREF: Ramy TOUCHAN - 3rd gameAR1: Kyle ATKINS - 77thAR2: Adam WIENCKOWSKI - 218th4TH: Armando VILLARREAL - 59thVAR: Edvin JURISEVIC - 47thAVAR: Kathryn NESBITT - 1st#PHIvCLB #DOOP #Crew96— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 22, 2019 #MLSRefStats@LAFC vs @realsaltlakeREF: Ismail ELFATH - 131st gameAR1: Jeffrey GREESON - 58thAR2: Felisha MARISCAL - 55th4TH: Baldomero TOLEDO - 118thVAR: Alex CHILOWICZ - 37thAVAR: Cameron BLANCHARD - 4th#LAFCvRSL #LAFC #RSL— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 22, 2019 #MLSRefStats@NERevolution vs @fccincinnatiREF: Joe DICKERSON - 12th gameAR1: Nick URANGA - 49thAR2: Claudiu BADEA - 133rd4TH: Robert SIBIGA - 92ndVAR: Jorge GONZALEZ - 41stAVAR: Tom SUPPLE - 8th#NEvCIN #NERevs #FCCincy— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) March 22, 2019
It will be a minor miracle if LAFC-RSL ends 11v11. Elfath has his hands full. No doubt last year’s playoff game definitely has added some spice to this game.
Honestly can't tell who played the ball last on the disallowed RSL goal, or even if it matters. If the defender was trying to block a shot, I'm pretty sure that's considered a deflection regardless so the right call was made?
I think the LAFC player touched it, but after what you said I think it has to be a deflection since it was a shot block. Plays like this need better clarification, IMHO. I first thought the block was a deliberate play, but now think the deflection call was right.
It’s offside no matter what. The snapshot is when the ball was last played or touched by a teammate. If the defender blocked the shot and touched it last, the goal scorer was still in an offside position when his teammate last played it and, as you said, the fact that he blocked a shot means this is a deflection. If the defender played it onto the attacker and it ricocheted to the goal scorer, then the attacker was even in a more extreme offside position at the time of the snapshot. The only way a play like this would be not offside is if the defender cleanly tackled the ball to the player in an offside position without the attacker ever touching the ball. Obviously that didn’t happen here.
What if Kreilach was attempting to pass to his left instead of shoot? Is that tackle then a deliberate play on the ball and hence re-sets the offside? I am trying to get a sense of how the exact same action from a defender could result in a goal or an offside call, depending on which direction the attacker chose to play the ball. It's already bad enough that advantage is so loosely defined - on the LAFC goal, the RSL defender wouldn't slide to block the ball if Diomande wasn't behind him, and Rimando wouldn't be over to that side of the goal if Diomande wasn't there, meaning the whole play happens differently if the "passive" guy isn't there. And with the flag being held until the play is over, a defender must make a play because they cannot know what the AR is going to do. But if they don't make a play, then perhaps the offside will be called; if they do make a play, then offside re-sets and they're damned. IFAB is making it so players and fans can't understand why things are being called or not. Offside used to make intuitive sense; it is less understandable what is happening now, and why - as if you all didn't have complicated enough relationships with fans and players before. It's a similar situation to the NFL trying to define what a catch is. So you get frustrated fans, players, coaches, and commentators.
If the attacker was trying to pass the ball a teammate in an offside position and is tackled as he does, but the ball still goes to that teammate... I’d call offside because I would deem that it’s a deflection since the defender didn’t have time and distance to react to the pass. That said, it’s a tricky question that I don’t think has a good answer right now. If the tackle is literally on the ball/player, I’m comfortable with my answer. If it’s 2-3 yards after the ball has been passed... maybe a different story. Agreed. It’s getting stupider and stupider because there’s seemingly no strategic direction with these evolving interpretations. They just keep evolving.
The more interesting play from that game is the red card. I think it's an acceptable decision, but an argument could be made for yellow as well. He got him in the neck area and it was more of a tool than weapon. I have a feeling PRO will come out and say that VAR should have sent that down and changed the decision to yellow. From the past two weeks in the "definitive angle," it seems that PRO wants VARs to take a much "closer" look and go more towards a class room decision on any penalty kick given and red card given. Essentially they want those decisions to be re-refereed. But when a penalty or red card wasn't given on the field, it seems they want the bar to be much, much higher for VAR to send that down. They don't support VAR sending down that penalty kick in the Atlanta vs. Cincinnati game because no one was asking for a penalty kick. In the DC United vs. RSL, PK they only support the VAR intervention because a card was shown on the field, but if a card wasn't shown on the field they didn't want the penalty kick called. Then in the Houston vs. Vancouver game they want the penalty kick annulled because there was a miniscule touch that you can see only in super slo mo. There was a PK in an RSL vs. Vancouver game two weeks ago where they say that the PK should have been annulled because they felt there was no contact even though they, themselves, say that the video is, basically, inconclusive to prove other wise.
The Houston penalty assessment last week, in particular, was frustrating. There’s no way on earth it was “clearly wrong” to award a penalty there. Even the language PRO used, when they said a corner kick was the preferred outcome, seemed to acknowledge that fact. The conclusion PRO drew on that play is entirely contrary to the stated purpose of VAR. That is both confusing and worrying.
For me, people are focusing too much on the actual contact instead of the complete action. From the video, Portillo appears to cock and swing an elbow but misjudges Rossi's position. THEN he gets him with the forearm anyway. If you watch Baldo as 4th official, he's on the radio already as Rossi takes the arm to the face/neck so I think the initial swing caught his attention.
In my opinion, red was the correct call on the RSL send off. However, no matter the call I would be fine with VAR saying no clear and obvious error exists. A play like this is a good example of where there just isn’t enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. Even if Elfath had gone yellow, I would have supported no reversal even if I personally disagreed with a caution.
Agreed completely. Also just look at the way Portillo is looking at Rossi when the ball is long past him. It’s a deliberate foul to the neck/head region when the ball is not even playable. Absolutely VC for me. He could have committed the same foul simply by grabbing a jersey and taking the easy yellow. That said, given how PRO has been the past few weeks, I wouldn’t be shocked if @RedStar91 was right and they say the lack of full force and contact to the head makes yellow the preferred outcome. That would, again, be frustrating and out of line with VAR protocols. But PRO does seem to be drifting down this path—at least when overturning big calls—which is really unfortunate.
Another thing to look at from NEvCIN is Diego Fagundez's yellow in minute 74. No review, but I think he caught the opponent's Achilles with his studs. No one seemed eager for a send off so perhaps the force just isn't there.
Lousy angles on that review too. Even the clearest one could be considered not 100% clear, though I think it would have been ridiculous to use that as a reason not to award the goal.