Interesting points. One thing that I haven't seen (though may have been suggested elsewhere) is that there was an incident last year between POR and LAFC with Diomande claiming he was called a racial slur by a Portland player, and an investigation neither verifying or vindicating either side. It's never been publicly named who Diomande said did it, but Cascante was considered one of the possibilities. I wonder if this was retaliation.
This raises an interesting question on the scope of VR. If the VAR concludes both that i was in the PA and that it wasn't handling, does it go to OFR? Or is not reviewable that way as not awarding a PK was not clearly erroneous?
It is reviewable. The called offence is factually determined to be in the PA. So VAR must intervene there. Then if, in the VAR’s opinion, the offence called amounts to a clearly wrong decision, he invites the referee to take the second look. But if he thinks it’s wrong and is not certain it’s inside the PA, he’s stuck. I think that’s what happened here, though I disagree with his low level of certainty.
Thanks MR--just another of those quirks of VR that you can lose the non-reviewable DFK because it actually was in the PA.
You're the first person I've heard (LAFC fans included) that thinks the player intentionally controlling the ball with his forearm isn't handling. https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DefiniteDevotedAndalusianhorse-mobile.mp4
I'm not 100% no handling because he does move his arm as the ball is coming off the foot of his teammate. That said, look at the big picture. The handling came when a teammate attempted to clear the ball, and it struck his arm from a short distance. You call it intentional, but what reason would he have to handle a clearance and take it back into his own penalty area? There's nothing there that makes me think he's in anyway trying to cheat the game. It looks more like he ran across the path of an unexpected ball and he wasn't able to get out of the way. At this level, there's a decent chance the VAR recommends a review for no penalty if it's called inside initially IMO.
Go to 5:00 here and listen to the audio: The "no way, no way, no way, no!" is the AR telling Sibiga that he didn't think it was handling. Now, that doesn't mean I'm right or that he's right. But hopefully it disabuses you of the notion that a person--let alone a referee--would not look at that and consider it to not be handling. The instinct of the AR on the match, who had the best view, was to tell Sibiga "no." Whether he told him too late or Sibiga felt he had a better view is something we can't know for sure. But the audio is clear.