Nothing we haven't already seen before. Just a rehash of Porter's comments and the situation. Followed by the typical uninformed fan comments.
Wow. Strong words. Only wish they were just as strong in support of officials in correctly-officiated other controversial incidents as they are here in condemnation.
So close to perfect, but one part of that is really bad in my opinion. They rightly go after the VAR, as I expected. The language around Unkel is unfortunate. All they had to say is “the referee should have concluded it was not clearly wrong to not call a foul.” Because that’s the standard that matters and that is the standard referees need to have at the monitor. Instead, PRO literally says “no foul occurred” as an objective fact. Even if you accept that in this particular instance, it’s a bad precedent to set because in future instances, fans will be able to point back to this (incorrect) standard. PRO also should have released the audio and video with this statement; rather than wait until tomorrow or Friday.
That is, really upsetting to me as a referee. If my assignor was sent a video where a trifling foul occurred and he stated to the coach of the team that there was no contact (no foul) period I wouldn't be working for that assignor anymore. Once again PRO doesn't stand up for their referees, they serve the MLS first.
If this upsets you, then don't ever make a run at the NBA. Every one of their calls in the final two minutes of the game is published as right or wrong and each team gets a document showing every single mistake a referee made during the entire game. The refs screwed up in a very public way. We live in an era where they just can't sweep it under a rug and say "we'll do better next time". They said it was a mistake. It's crazy to take it personally.
No they wrongly stated that it was an objective fact that there was no foul. That's simply not true, the fact is the "foul" didn't rise to the level of clear and obvious needing VAR intervention. I don't care about the NBA, why are we discussing the NBA?
PRO isn’t an assignor. It’s an employer. And it has customers. Sometimes those customers need to be placated when an employee errs. My issue is not that PRO didn’t stand up for its employees, as referees at this level know what they are signing up for. Getting thrown under the bus and losing assignments comes with the territory of being a professional referee. It’s part of life. My issue is that PRO was imprecise with its language here (which seems to be a consistent theme) and that can create issues down the road. I also think that partial transparency and inconsistent public statements are recipes for disaster. Speaking out at different levels and at different times (or not really speaking out at all) when a major or game-changing call is missed will have repercussions. It’s going to be whack-a-mole and create a bad incentive structure. There have already been several big calls this year that PRO has quietly said—through its week in review—were wrong. Why does this one get a stand-alone statement? Why does this one result in assignments getting changed? Is it because Porter spoke out so loudly? I’m not opposed to transparency, but when you feed the mob, the mob grows. So PRO needs to think very carefully about when and how it needs to speak out. I fear that sort of foresight is lacking.
I think it's very much because Porter complained how he did. This is also absolutely feeding the mob, a mob that doxxed Ted Unkel in 2017 for his correct call of sending off Orlando City player Rafael Ramos. A correct call which PRO supported in private and then rescinded with the review committee. They determined it was "a case of serious and obvious error" while still congratulating the referee (Ted Unkel) in private for his brave and correct call. Yes PRO is an employer, yes they have customers they have to appease. If they do so in a way which could stoke the mob into threatening a referees wellbeing, they need to be checked. Try as I might, I can't even find what punishment the president of the Orlando Supporters Group incurred for releasing Ted Unkels private information. And you can be certain all over the internet there are plenty of threats aimed at Ted Unkel. That is not what referees sign up for. I don't have a solution, but I wish PRO would treat this with more care than a Walmart public relations officer. EDIT: I found what happened to the President of the Orlando Supporters Group. "An Orlando City spokesperson said that the club's supporter group liaison was in communication with the supporter who posted the comment on his personal twitter account. The club asked him to remove the post, which he did. Because of this, the club and league have decided not take any further action. The supporter was warned of the serious nature of the incident and advised to consider the potential consequences of such a post." In short, nothing.
This goes all the way back to the beginning of the league. Certain teams and fanbases get more response from the league, refs, etc. I'm a broken record on this but if a Seattle player had tackled a Rapids player the way Mullan tackled Zakuani, the Seattle player gets 6 games, tops. But because the league needed to placate the Seattle fanbase Mullan got 10. A standard they then never applied again. (I was all for 10 games for Mullan if it meant a new standard was being set, where any violent tackle like that started at 3 games and went up from there, but I knew that wasn't really what was going to happen)
I like your post except this part. And that’s only because if PRO had a fraction of the professionalism in its communications operation that a corporate PR department had, things would be a lot better. Also, here’s an interesting thought experiment. PRO put out a statement saying the goal for Columbus should have counted. But it never put out a statement on the Roldan red, despite what the IRP did. So is that silence now interpreted to mean PRO disagreed with the IRP? Otherwise, why no statement last week? Surely the Roldan red was just as consequential to the outcome of last week’s game as the annulled goal was to this week’s. This is the sort of inconsistency that is problematic.
Well this makes me feel a little better, thanks JasonMa and MassachusettsRef. JasonMa reminded me specifically of a post on the Robert Evans blog that I decided to go searching for. I guess I'll settle down with this blog and remember the early days of the MLS, when it wasn't PRO but instead, Dr. Joe. https://fortheintegrityofsoccer.blo...frefereeing/2006/04/mls_illegal_way.html#more "I know of numerous examples where referees were told by assessors, and even by league personnel (including Joe) that their calls were correct but they were being removed from assignments or would not be allowed to referee a given team for the foreseeable future."
I think this incident is unique. I don't think it attracted attention just because of the whining, but because of perceptions that arose from the "foul by the referee." The fact that the collision including the referee helped create the attack meant that there was a perception that the call was made up to bail out the referee's involvement in the build up. I'm not saying that I agree completely with how PRO handled, but I do think the referee collision makes it unusual and a call that reasonably might be addressed by PRO more or differently than other calls.
so, what happens now? More training for everyone? I guess this points out that "clear and obvious" as a standard is rather nebulous. And during the heat of the game at full speed you've got to make these decisions pretty quickly. I don't quite understand this notion that there was a "decision to play on". Was there an actual "play on" called? I don't see it or how there would have been an advantage if there was a determination that there was a foul on Acosta. Or are they just being imprecise as usual?
The Definitive Angle, Week 10: http://proreferees.com/2019/05/10/the-definitive-angle-mls-week-10/ This does a much better job of explaining the situation than that statement from Wednesday. No Inside Video Review as of yet...
Inside Video Review, Week 10 http://proreferees.com/2019/05/10/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-10/
I must prefer the wording in this than the one in the Wednesday statement: It's far less of throwing the two under the bus than Wednesday's came across as, and explained the process really well. I also really like how they're focusing on "this was a correct usage" or "this was an incorrect usage". This is a learning process (not just for MLS refs, but worldwide refs are still learning how to use VAR properly). These missives definitely focus on that.