FYI, you can click "Watch Thread" that's right above the first post on a page and you'll get notifications about it.
But the AR (Bigelow?) got the throw correct. You can see it at the beginning of the video here. When Sigba points the other direction, he's showing the spot of the throw, but everybody knew whose throw in it was. http://www.espn.com/videohub/video/clip/_/id/26526487/categoryid/4823314 BTW, the lame thing here from a R perspective is that Sigba didn't really react to what just happened. I'm not sure if he missed it (maybe VAR talking about the non-hand ball three seconds earlier), or maybe he was focused on the new ball, but it certainly looks like he missed it in real time. It took a minute + for him to show the red card. Maybe he wanted things to die down first, but I think he missed it.
From what I've picked up, he did not immediately realize the ball had been kicked into the spectators. If I recall from the video, the ball was actually struck with enough force to rebound all the way back onto the field, which probably made him think it had been blasted off of the sign boards. Once he gets over there due to the mass confrontation and clearly sees the situation in the stands, it's of course an easy decision to show red. I just think the path of the ball combined with how unexpected the player's actions were in the first place contributed to the initial hesitation.
A very good hypothetical here is what a professional referee crew decides if the same exact act occurs, but the ball either hits the top of the sign boards or an empty seat in the first row, thereby not making any contact with a spectator? Before yesterday's incident, I bet the answer is yellow for dissent in MLS. Now that we've seen the potential result and the reaction that the act provokes, assuming MLS does not completely drop the ball with a weak suspension, I think you'll see red as the default response unless it is unambiguously clear that the ball is not being kicked at a person.
This is an example of how bad the Rapids season has been, but I can’t remember what went wrong in Col-Hou. What am I forgetting?
VAR recommended red card for VC on an incident where De Oliviera either did not call a foul or only called a foul. De Oliviera went yellow and PRO disagreed. He then missed an obvious SFP that led to a mass-con. He initially had mistaken identity on a yellow card (he fixed that himself) but needed VAR to get the red card that he definitely should have had on his own.
Can’t remember which call he went yellow on. I knew about the VAR red to Smith but didn’t realize it was obvious enough he should have caught it in his own.
All here: http://proreferees.com/2019/04/05/the-definitive-angle-mls-week-5/ Take a second to focus on his movement on the corner kick. It's not good and it contributes to why he misses the SFP. He moves away from the action and left of the far post, despite the ball landing at the near post and all the bodies converging there. Maybe he had an instinctive "got to move left" moment, but those days are long gone; his positioning was already a little suspect and his movement was almost inexplicable.
I too had to go look up the HOU-COL game. Here's what I don't get. In that game, VAR initiated to say DeOliveira made a clear and obvious error to not give any card on the elbow (he called a simple foul) and he should give a RC, but instead he gives a YC, and PRO says he was wrong after the fact to not give a RC. And then in the FCD-POR game, VAR again says he made a clear and obvious error not to call a penalty, he reviews, and again decides not to listen to VAR. To overrule VAR in both situations, especially the second time, is baffling! They were trying to bail him out and he ignored it. I don't know if it's ego, or just stage fright, or what, but his refusal to accept help is, again, baffling.
I hear ya but have a minor clarification. There is a reason the VAR says "I recommend a review for ....". The VAR is only offering the official an opportunity to see a different angle or to have a second look at something. That may not mean the referee sees anything different or that he didn't have a view of something on the field that negates what the VAR sees. Remember that TV is nice, but it definitely doesn't show everything. So there is no "overruling the VAR" unless someone says they will not go to the monitor. That being said, I like the word choice of "baffling" in your comment.
I would argue that Kaku was not dissenting in this case so I think the answer would probably have been either yellow for dissent or a UB yellow for game disrepute depending on the context.
And this is a big point. I think VAR should be able to say "I recommend you do an OFR for this call." I also think the VAR can say, "Look, this is an easy reversal. If you want to look yourself, fine. However, I am certain that we need to reverse this call." I know egos play into this, but I personally would be fine if my VAR told me, "Hey, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to reverse this call. It's an easy reversal." It's not much different than me accepting my AR's decision on a foul in his/her quadrant. If they raise the flag and I don't have anything to clearly say I should wave them down, I'm going with the AR's call.
The only problem with this comparison is that never (or exceedingly rarely) would you make a decision, have the AR overrule you, and you just accept it. The decisions we are talking about somewhat occur in a vacuum for VAR purposes. There might be the slightest amount of management wiggle room for a VAR, but essentially the question is whether or not a KMI is decided in a clearly wrong manner. But for the referee, managing a match, nothing can be in a vacuum. On subjective decisions I think there are two big reasons why there must be OFRs: First, the referee can sell his call better to the players and manage them. "I looked at it again, I agree" is much easier than "Well, I was with you guys but the man upstairs says otherwise." Second, a referee needs to know what he got wrong so he can calibrate his decision-making going forward. I said this, I believe, when a VAR overturned an Atkinson red card in the FA Cup. Atkinson had to go the rest of that match without knowing how close he was to being right. Did he totally blow it? Was it just angle? How severe was the yellow he just now gave? The same goes for penalties. How soft or stonewall, in the opinion of the referee, was a decision given via VAR? Without that knowledge, it becomes very difficult to calibrate decision making going forward. And a possible third point is that we have already seen hundreds of examples of a VAR and CR disagreeing. If that's the reality and we are taking the final decision-making away from the referee, that will be the quickest path toward officials hating the process and system you could possibly find. This was supposed to help referees get calls right. If referees are consistently walking away from matches thinking their otherwise correct decision was wrongly overturned, then we are simply having technology for the sake of having technology. This last point serves as a reminder that no matter how much the IFAB says we are dealing with objective decisions on penalties and red cards, we really aren't. But that ship has sailed, obviously. I think the one place MLS errs from a procedural standpoint is requiring the OFR on all offside decisions, even when they are objective. That felt like a step backward. I also do like Australia's practice of not having an OFR if the VAR identifies a clear off-the-ball VC situation that the referee never even knew happened, but even that is a slippery slope because at some point a potential VC becomes borderline.
@MassachusettsRef , I won't quote your whole post for brevity's sake. I get where you are coming from. I've enjoyed the discussions around VAR, and my two biggest points I want to see in order to be a full-fledged fan are: Ensuring that there truly is a "clear and obvious" error before overturning. If there is not sufficient evidence, then the call on the field should stand. Not taking an excessive amount of time to make reviews. I don't claim to know exactly what the right answer is regarding a "line" for when the VAR can just tell the referee "it's a 100% reversal". Theoretically, if the VAR can tell the referee, "I'm positive that we need a reversal", then the referee can just take that advice just as if an AR caught VC behind my back and advised me. However, I also want the referee to be the final authority on a decision. I am a fan of VAR. What I'm not a fan of is when I watch games (Serie A seems to be the worst offender) where it takes what seems like forever to do a VAR review. I also don't like when a reversal occurs when there doesn't appear to be clear evidence to support a reversal.
http://proreferees.com/2019/04/18/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-7/ PRO officially says the Dallas-Timbers handball should have been a penalty.
I have sympathy for that no-call. His angle in real time was the same as the second angle showed on the replay, which I think Barkey (or whoever produced it) knew, because they only showed it one time. If its true that a touch on the chest first diminishes the importance of a subsequent touch on the arm, and that is what he saw in real time, then that second angle confirms the no call. Most observers will see the first angle and think "obviously a PK," but if you see the second angle first, as the ref did in real time, then the VAR doesn't give you enough to change your call. I think it still should have been a PK (mostly bc I don't buy that it touching the chest first mitigates against against calling a hand ball). But I do understand why he didn't change his no call.
I fear you’re giving him far too much credit. To start, it really doesn’t matter if the ball glances off the shoulder to the hand if, you know, the hand is up where it is for seemingly no reason. More to the point, this referee now has a history of ignoring VAR advice. He apparently doesn’t want to admit to being wrong. I am sure he’s lost the benefit of the doubt. It’s an obvious penalty. Understandable but regrettable miss without VAR. But no excuse with it.
So what's the best case scenario with this referee? Two weeks off for further training and then back at it? Or does he get USL games for the rest of the season?
He was never someone who needed to have regular middles. That’s not how MLS assigning must work for all middles. Two weeks off would be par for the course given his historical assignment pattern. So hard to say. But I think given his performance last year, his place as an MLS middle will be in jeopardy at the end of this season.
Thanks. I haven't been paying all that much attention, but I see that the long time vets like Marrufo and Toledo are still getting games. Is the MLS having any trouble finding new blood to replace old that can handle this level? Or is that a totally separate thread?
Kaku gets a two additional game suspension plus a fine for kicking the ball into the stands. That seems a wee bit light to me.
That means he received the same suspension that Tim Howard did for cursing at a fan. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...ward-suspended-altercation-fan-after-skc-loss