I genuinely agree with most of your points on this forum and I think you bring a lot of good insight, but you have this weird obsession with semantics in seemingly all these debates. Your general point is just wrong. You can't gain any real or valuable experience by sitting home and watching video and saying to yourself "I recommend a review for a penalty kick." Being VAr is nothing like refereeing a match where experience at lower levels can prepare you for higher levels. With VAR, it's all or nothing when it comes to gaining experience. You become ready to do VAR by being VAR or maybe AVAR. Watching videos doesn't come close. There is no other substitute or gradual progression for experience like there is, say, in being an MLS referee. You can do international friendlies, pre-season games, USL games, Open Cup games, etc that can get you prepared to do an MLS middle.
I think there is a bit more you can get--not from just watching videos, but from a more true mock. I'm under the impression that they have done something like that as part of the training--run the full game (or parts of games) through the VAR system so that the VAR team is acting as a VAR, manipulating the videos on the consoles, and talking to a with a pretend referee and possibly AR as they do reviews. That's much more than just watching videos and will help when the VAR actually does a game. But it is also much less than being a VAR.
Well, I had two people essentially claim I'm arguing something differently than I clearly stated. But I really don't understand how viewing videos of gameplay, giving an opinion what violations, if any, you saw, and then having someone with more experience review your interpretations with you wouldn't offer tremendous experience. I've done the computer videos test of offside situations and then had my opinions reviewed by a much higher level AR. It was a great experience. My point is that getting actual game experience may be difficult. We can still move the process along through videos + instruction. I would think if you had two people assigned to VAR, the one that had reviewed hours of video, gave opinions, was reviewed, is in a far better position than the one who had not.
I spoke to @PROreferees GM Howard Webb today about #ThrowInGate #HudsonRiverDerby and he admitted that referee Alan Kelly mismanaged the moment:"To be clear, there was no communication from the referee to the players." More later @ProSoccerUSAcom #NYCFC @NYCFC #MLS @MLS #RBNYvNYC— Glenn Crooks (@GlennCrooks) July 19, 2019 Just a thought, can you imagine a coach saying something like this about a player? Of course not, they defend their players to the death.
I don't see any way to read that quote other than an admission that Kelly lied to the pool reporter. You know who never lied in public about any particularly controversial incident he may have been involved with this season? Ted Unkel.
I’ll note I’ve been skeptical since the beginning. I just can’t believe PRO has said nothing officially, given past practices. But maybe they just realized Kelly put them in an impossible spot. The only good scenario left is that the quote in this tweet is not properly contextualized. Still not a great scenario. But it might mitigate the consequences a bit from “lying.”
If I was Kelly I'd be pissed and about to give that English ponce a Glasgow smile. Glasgows in Ireland right?
https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/ne...anging-incident-during-nycfc-red-bulls-derby/ Well this doesn't make anything any better.
Sure it does. As I’ve been saying all along, acknowledging they screwed up is what NYC really wanted. To make it clear, Kelly didn’t lie. He said he communicated verbally. He didn’t say to whom he communicated. This does make Kelly appear less than trustworthy.
You really believe this? Correct. As I noted at the time, if the language used in the pool report answers was the best honest answer he could give, it wasn't good. That said, "I'm not a liar, I'm just not trustworthy," isn't exactly the place a professional referee wants to find himself in with teams (not to mention the press, his employer, and fans in general).
Kelly mismanaged the situation and lied to my direct question. https://t.co/jJ3QrMlXPj— Dylan Butler (@Dylan_Butler) July 19, 2019
To be 100% accurate, Kelly did verbally indicate it was a throw-in, which is what he answered. He just verbally indicated it to the AR, not the players.
See the follow up quote from him though - the question was - was it verbally communicated to NYC players. The answer to that question should have been "no".
He may have thought that his verbal indication to the AR was good enough for the players... But hindsight with video and listening to the comms might've told him otherwise.
Most definitely. These players/coaches have been in this game their entire lives. How many times do you think they've seen a referee in a professional game change his call after dissent? zero. They know he's not going to change his call. They want him to acknowledge that his actions screwed them.
Mr. Butler doesn't read well. He said he communicated verbally. He did not say "to the players". We know he communicated to the AR or the AR would have been waving his flag like crazy when the ball was thrown in. If he communicated with the players, even verbally, there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Convincing you otherwise is going to be hopeless, so I’ll just make my point once. In this case, if Kelly admitted error it was perfectly lawful for him to go back to the prior restart. They were trying to get him to disallow the goal. Believing otherwise seems incredibly naive to me. They didn’t want an apology. They wanted a do-over and the score 1-1. As for the idea that players dissent to get acknowledged... I think I’d put that fourth on the list, at best. Referees do change their calls when alerted to major screw ups, so when “dissent” occurs to bring attention to such a screw up, yes, getting the referee to change his decision is the #1 priority in such cases. Letting off steam/frustration and setting a referee up to give you the next borderline call are probably #2 and #3 on the dissent “purpose” list—to the extent dissent is purposeful. Getting an acknowledgment/apology at the professional level as a top purpose of dissent? I don’t think you’d believe that if you’ve refereed a lot of these games. Those sort of human moments and understanding do not come out of situations like this.
That's a very generous interpretation. I think it's pretty clear he just had a brainfart on the whole thing. Not sure what you mean by "doesn't read well". He asked a question - was it communicated to NYC players - and was told he communicated it verbally. It's splitting hairs to say that's not a lie. The AR looked fairly surprised to me - but recognized that Kelly was letting it continue. Maybe it was communicated, but from what I've seen, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
The big problem was after the game. They were not trying to get him to reverse anything. He couldn't. They wanted acknowledgment. I don't think you factor in that these players are human. They know post-game nothing can change. But they want someone to acknowledge that they were screwed.
The defense of Kelly--both in-match and post-match--is mind-numbing. It was pretty clear right from the beginning what happened: 1. He lost concentration/focus 2. He realized the error and consequent confusion at a point where he felt it was too late to credibly fix (as a perhaps slightly worse alternative, he realized it somewhat quickly but thought it would be minor--so long as a goal wasn't scored) 3. He gave the best possible cover-your-ass answer to a very good pool report question That's it. That's what happened. Everything else is a sideshow. Whether the goal really wouldn't have been scored, whether it was objectively a corner or a throw-in, whether NYCFC wanted an apology or a do-over. From a refereeing job performance perspective, it all comes down to the three things above. And all three are black marks for Kelly. You can debate how bad each one is on their own and how bad a screw up this is overall and whether or not it's worse than some other episode. But defending him on these points? C'mon.
Out of curiousity, if he had made them take the thrown in again, would you have taken issue with that?