Rapids #23 on the bottom. Kamara was complaining in the first half of an elbow to the head and this looks like the moment he claims it happened. It doesn't really show anything to me though.
That makes sense. I remember that now. It was early on if I recall. I don't remember seeing a replay that showed what actually happened, and obviously we can't tell from just a still shot unfortunately.
I'm looking forward to ESPN spending 3 full minutes next week talking about how Chapman was right all along and apologizing for piling on here: Of course... PRO knows Chapman was right and has known Chapman was right since the night of the match (5/16). Yet PRO's system won't exonerate Chapman until this Friday. It's already old news in the eyes of ESPN. And we're likely going to wait another 72 hours before hearing anything publicly. This broadcast was either on 5/17 or 5/18 talking about a match on 5/16. If PRO had a competent and proactive media affairs operation, ESPN would have known before they ever went on air that Chapman was right and this damaging commentary above never happens.
ESPN should get some of the blame here, too. They should have been able to figure it out on their own. It's their A/V.
I’m just happy that the video and audio weren’t synced. That would not have been good otherwise. Unfortunately, the masses won’t realize this and will use it as another excuse to pile on PRO and MLS.
Something doesn't add up...why on earth would PRO wait and not say anything? And ESPN, whose video it is, doesn't know that their A/V is off? So really all we have is someone on twitter saying he has the inside scoop?
Technically I said it first, so it's some guy on BigSoccer and then some guy on Twitter. PRO begins reviewing all VAR decisions from the previous week with its officials on Monday. Some PRO officials engage here or with posters here and information can get divulged before it is shared publicly. So, in this case, I am sure that multiple people posting in this thread have seen the correctly synced video that proves Chapman blew the whistle after the ball was in the net. But it won't be on the PRO site for another day or two. PRO doesn't give its full assessment and final conclusion on VAR decisions to the public until Thursday/Friday, after it has had time to discuss and analyze all clips with its team throughout the week. Essentially, PRO is not typically willing to make public pronouncements until all assessments and analyses are done. While that's somewhat understandable, it could (and should) be willing to put out factual information that exonerates its referees from baseless charges immediately. Not doing so provides a disservice to its referees. And besides, in extraordinary situations they have shown a willingness to provide information that indicts/convicts its officials (see: DCU v CLB) in an accelerated fashion. It's only fair they do the same in the other direction.
It certainly is surprising, if not shocking, that in a situation like this where they can exonerate their referee (at least on the offside decision) they choose to remain eerily silent.
I think PRO views its first audience as the clubs, not the fans or media. So when a referee is in the wrong and needs to be publicly sacrificed to placate a coach, that's going to happen. But unless I've missed something, FC Dallas hasn't pressed this issue in any sort of sustained manner... likely because they were there on the field and know what actually happened. If FC Dallas isn't in Howard Webb's ear that night or the next morning, there's no real urgency to get information out. Fan forums or an ESPN FC broadcast is just background noise to PRO. Again... media affairs is the issue. It's not a forte or a priority for PRO.
Call me Pollyanna, but I would think that MLS would care about bad press over what appears as a blatant and inexcusable error by a referee that was purely manufactured by its broadcast partner.
That much is certainly clear though maybe a one sentence email to ESPN FC wouldn't seem to be too much to ask to clear it up. The image of your referee group seems like it would be worth protecting especially when it's something that simple. Regarding Dallas, maybe they figure they lost by 2 anyways and they're just happy Bressan got away with a blatant RC.
http://proreferees.com/2019/05/24/the-definitive-angle-mls-week-12/ PRO can't even defend its referees appropriately when it has the facts on its side and over a week to craft its statement. This is unbelievable. That statement is ambiguous for anyone who reads it. Maybe the VAR had the right audio output, maybe viewers at home did! Draw your own conclusions, rabid partisan fans! PRO knows Chapman did not blow the whistle too early so PRO knows which of the two audio outputs is correct. All PRO has to do is publicly state exactly what it already told all of its referees privately. Instead, we get this--8 days later. As I said, truly unbelievable.
Seems to me that it is just crappy writing, not a suggestion that we should decide which is correct. (Though we do live in the era of "alternate facts."). I *think* it says the official audio is clear, and they want to know why the broadcast audio was incorrect. But for heaven's sake, their ability to state things clearly can be worse than IFABs. (Perhaps because they are afraid of offending the golden goose of TV and think they are being subtle?)
Also should point out I am very disappointed with the language here: Tell me it lacked the force, fine. You could even point out/argue that it was an unfortunately slip and not truly done with malice. But lacking the point of contact?!?!? He stepped square on his ankle bone with his studs when the ball was two full yards away. This could easily have been VC precisely because of the point of contact if you tick the box for force. Not too many people will read this looking for that level of detail, but those that do will come away with the wrong conclusion. I will point out that PRO lauded its referees for going against a VAR recommendation in three out of six cases last week. So for anyone who has argued its problematic (or worse) for CRs to go against VARs... this should hopefully disabuse them of that notion permanently.
My favorite sentence from this week's installment: Although there is no set time limit for how long the VAR can take to look at footage, there is a point where any infraction would not be seen as “clear” to the referee or public if it has taken so long to make a decision.
This jumped out to me as well. I'm sure the VAR looked at the point of contact as one reason to recommend a review, and I can understand it because it's the freaking Achilles, which PRO has said time and time again is a big danger zone for injuries. I absolutely agree that the force is not there. He appears to bring his foot down in a normal stepping motion as he turns to chase the ball. There's no thrust like Marco Fabian, and there's no obvious change of movement in which he goes out of his way to step on the opponent. It's all fluid motion, but reckless because Polenta failed to account for the position of the opponent sliding in when he stepped down. If you want to give red there because of the point of contact and how far away the ball is, sure, I can support that, too.
Who is the target audience for these releases? Fans? Other refs? Coaches and staff? Because this is the second week in a row I was hoping to share the VAR review with fellow Rapids fans who have been upset (rightfully or not) with the way VAR was handled in our game and both times the published language does as much to make it worse as it does to make it better. (And while Polenta didn't have additional force he does look down and make no effort to prevent his weight from being on the ankle. If this is an area of concern due to injury it seems like that should factor in.)
Have I mentioned PRO doesn’t excel at public relations and media affairs? This is not for referees, who see a different output. But I don’t think PRO really knows what its audience is here. There’s no strategy. It’s partial transparency for the sake of being transparent.
And he didn't even talk about the A/V sync issues on the Inside Video Review video. I can't even. http://proreferees.com/2019/05/24/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-12/
Goes back to the questions of "who is the audience," which would help answer whether that was important to include. Indeed, that really isn't a VR issue at all--there was no review for that as it was clear that the whistle came after the goal. I don't know that inside video review or the definitive angle were the proper places to address the non-issue--all they had to do (or MLS had to do) was issue a separate one sentence statement that they were aware of the furor, but the audio feed was not synced on the TV broadcast. Either PRO or MLS could have done that the day after the game.