I don't think you're interpreting what I said correctly. Grabbing a player by the neck like that in an aggressive fashion is a red card. It is violent conduct. No argument here. I would quibble with the description that it "sen[t] him to the ground," though. I think Penso was absolutely correct that Johnson was embellishing the result. That aside... When you have one look from Penso's view, which is looking at the neck side of Johnson that wasn't grabbed, you can understand why it's missed in real-time. So now you're subjecting everything to VAR review. And the VAR doesn't just say "is that violent conduct for me?" He asks, "is it clearly wrong to not give a red card for violent conduct?" And my point is that the league just overturned a red card for violent conduct that was pretty clearly violent conduct by the letter of the law, so VARs are going to be a little gun-shy in this area and their threshold for intervention is going to be heightened. Your construct of the "the league and PRO" portrays all refereeing matters as decided by one monolithic entity. When in reality everything comes down to one individual human making one individual decision at a time. The VAR in this game might have just missed the grab--it's possible. But it's just as possible that he saw the grab on replay and decided it wasn't clearly wrong to not give a red even if he viewed the preferred outcome as a red. And it's definitely possible that public decisions made by the league immediately prior to this match might factor into his thinking, given that his performance is evaluated and his job depends on not making perceived errors in PRO's eyes.
Barkey addresses things in the video Week in Review. PRO says it's clearly yellow. http://proreferees.com/2019/05/17/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-11/
I can’t say it shouldn’t be a yellow in the MLS. I just want this to be a red card, and I want skilled players to be protected from obvious hackery. That could easily have been a sweeping leg trip, instead it was a straight leg to the ankle. That has the potential to injure a skilled player. And I’d much rather see skillful play being encouraged.
No, it was foot to foot. And I think if it was to ankle PRO would have said something very different.
And now I'm thoroughly confused. The inside video review said "yes that's a yellow, good call" while this one says: which seems to suggest the orange card many Rapids fans (including myself) thought it was and VAR shouldn't have been used.
As a followup to the Ibrahimovic incident... Suspended for two games by DisCo. Interesting that it was not mentioned on any of the PRO incident reviews that I've seen to date... https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...mmittee-suspends-zlatan-ibrahimovic-two-games
Uh, no. It was the front part of the foot, not near the ankle. You can want it to be red, but don’t make up facts to argue for it. (I see it as orange and don’t think it should have been reversed with VAR.)
Truly bizarre. How do you put out two pieces about the same thing without being sure they synch? That would be like having a different committee review discipline that was given and discipline not given.
On the COL RSL PK, PRO says PRO’s Decision: A penalty is the correct outcome in this case and certainly if the referee had awarded a penalty kick from the outset the VAR would have quickly completed a check. Is that a backhanded way of saying it was not a clear error that should have been reviewed? They usually say it was or was not proper use of VAR, but here they duck that question without comment.
Don’t accuse me of making up facts, that’s simply what I see. If you want to show me in a lab with a perfectly clear 10,000 FPS video that I’m wrong go ahead. It’s right next to the ankle, it’s a red for me.
Only to the extent the whole foot is next to the ankle. You really water down your argument for red (which is certainly not unreasonable—I agree with you that it should not have been reversed) when you exaggerate.
I mean, suspensions aren't really of any interest to PRO just like suspensions aren't of any relevance to us minions out there every weekend.
Do you know the focal length of the lens? How about the speed of the camera? You’re so certain I’m exaggerating when you don’t have objective facts to back your opinion. Just a distorted image. I’m leaving this argument, I’ve said what I wanted.
Yawn. You said it was his ankle. Then you said it was half an inch from his ankle. And now it’s just a distorted image where you can’t tell. Yawn.
Except its not, as multiple people here and PRO have stated (including this biased Rapids fan). If you want to claim that the image isn't clear enough for PRO to recommend overturning based on it that's one thing, but to say definitively that it was at or within an inch of the ankle is as wrong as you're claiming us to be.