Bradley must have had the tv audio piped into his brain, because he was overly amped about it after the game...
This LAFC-Dallas thing could be REALLY interesting. I'm watching the game as I'm typing this. Practically speaking (and understand I realize the whistle blows the play dead), that whistle had zero impact on the play. The ball was away before the whistle blew. I've listened a few times, and the ball was very close to the goal line when the whistle blew. That being said, if the whistle blew before the ball was completely over the goal line, the play is dead and the goal shouldn't count. What ramifications could come from that happening? If the goal was ruled as it shouldn't have counted, do you replay the match? Do you just replay from the point of the blown call? The offside call was close, so that flag should never have gone up at the time of the offside. It was not obvious at all. I'm good with this being a clear and obvious error from a VAR perspective.
Paused the video at around 2:37 right after the whistle goes. Ball is still in the goal area about to be kicked.
I never have trusted the audio/video sync for sports programming and I trust it less now because of Fox's consistently terrible sync that have announcers telling you want you are about to see on screen.
It happened in a Montreal @ Colorado match in 2012(?). Ball was bouncing along the top of the crossbar, normally would expected to fall off behind the goal but heavy wind that day blew it back into play, whistle blew as the ball fell off the bar and a Rapids player headed it home for the goal. Goal stood, nothing was ever said about the early whistle outside internet forums. This is, obviously, getting more attention than that did, but I expect the same result.
The match won't be replayed from any point. A protest wouldn't hold because it is a judgment call of the referee team and VAR determining the whistle only went when the ball crossed the goal line.
So VAR can be used to overturn a referee's judgment call but the judgment of VAR can not be questioned? Yet another flaw in the logic of VAR.
Uh, not really. Judgment decisions by the referee are final under the LOTG, no matter how wrong they are. VAR does not overturn a referee's judgment. The video ASSISTANT referee assists the referee in making a game decision. Here the referee decided the goal was valid. So we have two different possible scenarios here. Scenario One: Referee says the goal was valid on review because the ball crossed the line before the whistle. The result stands no matter whether that is factually correct or not. Scenario Two: Referee says he let the goal stand because he thought it was the most fair result as the whistle made no difference. This is a misapplication of law that is subject to a protest.
From what I can tell, the audio is appropriately synced. This is a bad one, but I don't know who gets most of the blame because I don't think the referee gets audio in the RRA. That said, he knows he blew the whistle so he should theoretically be prompting the VAR to check that, too.
Which is why I said VAR is "used to overturn" - VAR essential says, "you might want to look at that again". Then the CR uses the info from VAR and the review to decide if he wants to overturn the call. Regardless of how nitpicky you want to be, the suggestion from RedStar leaves VAR in the position of "we can review your judgment, but no one can review our judgment." If the CR judgment was truly final, we'd leave the original call and do away with VAR.
That's what's so bothersome. If the video/audio are accurate, the number of officials who saw this and went along with ignoring the whistle is staggering.
I'd wait for the audio on this one. If this is as appears, it's way worse than Unkel/Terry Jr. But there's also a chance that this isn't as it appears. And if this is as it appears, the primary assignment of blame falls on Chapman, in my opinion. One of the questions that is always or should always be asked by the VAR of the CR in this situation is "did you blow the whistle?" If Chapman said "no," and he was mistaken, that's not going to be good. And even prior to that, why is he blowing the whistle at a point that makes this a question? Sure, the AR's flag was against protocol but if he couldn't see the far defender on the ground at the time of the decision, you can understand why he thought this was an obvious offside. Once LAFC faces an empty net, there's no reason whatsoever to blow the whistle until it's very clear the ball is in the back of the net. Maybe Chapman did literally wait until it crossed the line and there's a sync issue here--but even then, this was unnecessarily close. And it does look worse than that right now.
That's why I immediately thought of audio sync being off. Why wait to blow the whistle only to blow up right before the ball crosses the line? Bizarre.
This is nonsensical. The CR literally reviews the recommendation the VAR makes to make a final decision. The CR always has the final decision. You can hate the VAR system--and there are a lot of valid reasons to do so. But arguing the VAR's judgment cannot be reviewed is demonstrably and factually incorrect. Particularly in MLS, where even objective decisions require an OFR, literally every "decision" (which are in fact recommendations) from a VAR is subject to review and approval by the CR.
Right. My gut tells me that Chapman flew too close to the sun here but that the audio must be slightly off and he was technically correct. Given everything else and past problems with this sort of thing (see: Anno, Jasen), there's just no way this happens in the VAR age, right? I mean... right? But if audio is accurate, this is very, very bad.
I didn't argue that VAR's judgment can't be reviewed. Redstar did asserted that. My argument is that IF he is correct, it's just another flw in an already flawed system. Likewise, you can claim the CR has final decision, and while it is true on paper, it is not true in practice. CR's know that if VAR contacts them and they disagree with VAR too often, future assignments are at stake. So in practice, my CR's are going to go with VAR even if they feel they are personally correct. Another flaw in the system.
No, he didn't. He literally said "the referee team and the VAR." You apparently chose to read "the VAR" only. No, actually it is 100% true in practice. I mean, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You're completely wrong and I have no idea why you seem confident that you're right. VARs are assessed, too. It's not like PRO sticks an official in the VAR booth and suddenly decrees that their judgment is perfect. If a VAR makes an incorrect recommendation, they are losing points. This should be obvious because PRO flat-out says this. They called out and punished Terry Jr. for his incorrect recommendation in DC. Do you think Ted Unkel was rewarded for agreeing with an incorrect recommendation? The way the scoring system works for assessments, CRs actually have the potential to gain points if they get a difficult decision correct and then correctly stick with it over the recommendation of their VAR. The main incentive in all cases is to be correct, because that's what drives assessments scores, which in turn drives assignments and future employment. But if you look at it through the prism of maximizing scores and you're a bit of a gambler, you can actually see a slight incentive to disagree with the VAR if you are confident with your original decision. Just utterly and completely wrong.
Is the whistle blowing something that can be reviewed or is it assumed that the CR would not screw up and be absent minded enough to blow the whistle in that situation? That is, it is completely up to the CR to fess up and say he blew the whistle too early?
I doubt there's a sync issue but I guess eventually we might find out. As noted this has happened in the past but that was pre-VAR. A million years ago when I was a young referee I worked with a very experienced referee who was one of the best in our area. We had a similar-ish situation in a game where he blew the whistle to signal a goal before the ball had crossed the line. (I think back in those days - late 80s - that we usually blew the whistle for a goal) I had to tell him that the ball hadn't crossed the line yet when he blew the whistle. He was quite angry with himself but did the necessary thing and did a drop ball. Of course the team that scored was also quite unhappy too. But it was a lesson to not blow the whistle when you don't need to.
Seems like everyone on the crew missed this trickery... Quand je vois Crépeau cette saison... https://t.co/vRw31HUZlX— Nilton Jorge (@NiltonJorge) May 16, 2019
He didn't use trickery to circumvent kicking the ball to the keeper since the defender never touched it with his foot.