Roldan suspension has been successfully appealed. That makes three since the implementation of VAR that the IRP overturned despite, to the best of my knowledge, PRO not considering them a clear and obvious error to be reviewed during the game itself, although this is the first one I actually thought would have been reviewed if it WASN'T given. Same farce it's always been, pretty much.
I remain perplexed--PRO has a vote on that committee, and it has to be unanimous to overturn, right? That leads me to one simple question, which I have had all along with looking at the results from this committee: WTF? And I'm waiting for the right-hand, left-hand moment when their weekly review says it was a good send off and the IRP overturns it. . .
That already happened. Remember? The Orlando red card that Unkel gave, and Pro said it was the right call, yet thier member voted to overturn because Orlando fans were really upset. Peter Walton said something super dumb (but probably true) like, "something can be right by referee standards, and an injustice to the fans" or something like that. Edit: oh, oh, oh, another one! The Baldomero/Gantar (VAR) red card last year against Seattle. Pro backed it, but also voted to overturn it. Right? I could be remembering that wrong, but I think that was Marshall.
PRO didn't back that one as far as I'm aware. They did back a couple others that were given on the field last year and then rescinded by the IRP. The Ramos red was the only one that PSRA made a public statement about, however.
Someone knows who the PRO representative is. I think it's time to name them. The referees have to stand up to criticism, why not them as well?
I'm not sure what "has some respect issues" means - I can interpret that lots of ways - but I can see why this role would be a no-win situation for the PRO representative. If the committee requires unanimity, and if we expect the PRO rep to 100% back their colleagues' game-time decisions, then nothing will ever get overturned, and there is no point to the committee (or, in the league's eyes, to the committee having a PRO rep on it, which would only lead to just the federations making the decision without referee input). If the PRO rep doesn't back those decisions, then we have this conversation.
Who suggested that? The problem is not with the PRO rep agreeing to appropriate reversals, but when the PRO rep agrees to reversals that are inconsistent with what PRO is telling refs to do. If PRO (and FIFA) is teaching that certain conduct is a send off, it is a travesty if a PRO rep is agreeing to reverse that send off.
No one knows what the PRO answer on Roldan was yet, right? I mean, I am nearly certain that PRO said VAR was right not to intervene (that's just common sense), but there is a possibility that PRO took the opinion that the contact was negligible and this did not require a send off from the on-field crew. Also, from a mechanics perspective, the PRO member on the IRP is a PRO Board Member. So it's not someone who is involved in the day-to-day management and training of the referees. At least I think I have that right.
Numerous individuals saw it differently than how Unkle described it in his response to the pool reporters questions. His reasoning left it open to be overturned. Also, if you want the referees to have a rep on the board you don't go with a PRO rep. Go with someone who the union backs. At minimum make sure the union backs the Pro Rep selected.
There's a great deal of confusion from fans about this sort of thing because of the inclusion of a PRO representative on the panel. When something isn't overturned, they blame the MLS and the PRO representative for backing their referees against a team because they hate that team or don't think their referees can be wrong. If the committee does overturn, it's cause even the PRO representative couldn't support what his own referee did and thus that referee shouldn't get a game ever again. I think the logical thing to do would be for the PSRA to either demand they have a representative that the union votes for to be on the panel. Or to leave the MLS entirely and just be scheduled on games, render their decisions and walk away from any clerical post-game corrections
Can you explain a little more here? I don't know the background here. Stipulating I'm not aware of what he said to the pool reporter, I don't know how that matters. The IRP's mandate is to overturn incorrect red cards due to inconsistency with the Law, right? What I'm saying here is that if next week Toledo writes in a report that he saw player X violently elbow player Y in the face, but the video actually shows he violently forearmed him in the face, the IRP isn't going to overturn the red card because Toledo's specific justification wasn't 100% accurate. The question facing the IRP is whether or not Roldan committed an offence that is justifiably sanctionable with a red card per the Laws. At least, on paper, that's what it is. You say that as though it's an option!
I certainly wouldn't be one to know what particular politics and negotiating there is going on. Just seems that PRO isn't really on the up and up if the things that have already happened, can happen. Anyone know where PROs office is currently located?
Right. It's not a mystery. And it's not like PRO is truly an independent body. It's a venture of MLS, USSF and CSA, but the money comes from MLS.
Hard disagree. The IRP should definitely not have a lower standard to overturn than VAR, but that's exactly what has happened over the last two seasons. It undermines the entire concept of video review.
I'm still at the original event. If the third guy in creating a mass confrontation receives absolutely no penalty, than there should never have been a red card issued to Roldan for a ticky-tacky brush of the face and extreme over reaction by third guy in.
Isn’t there some room for nuance when it comes to rescinding red cards? Instead of looking at overturning the card as an admonishment of Ted Unkel’s decision, what if the PRO rep on the committee basically just agrees with the idea that a reasonable ref could have given Roldan a red, but also there were mitigating circumstances and a 1-game suspension would be harsh? After all, suspensions are generally left up to the league and not explicitly spelled out as part of the LOTG. Also, judging whether actions are deliberate seems like one of the hardest aspects of offi
Though I don’t disagree, in plain English this means there would be no more IRP. Because if the VAR has a lower threshold for intervention and the VAR gets to act first, the IRP would never act unless it was reaching a conclusion that the VAR utterly and miserably failed at his or her job (or the referee did by refusing to take a VAR recommendation). Again, I agree with you. I think the IRP should have been a casualty of the introduction of VAR. Because now people think the referee got something egregiously wrong and the VAR also missed it or wrongly backed him, which is false. But I think it’s important to explicitly note what’s being suggested.
I think there is also, as someone suggested, a concept that a send off may have been appropriate, but that there is a reason for mercy that warrants lifting the suspension. The IRP could be more transparent about saying that if that is what it is doing. (Of course, those are murky waters--what the heck are the standards to apply to that?) Personally, given how the IRP functions, which I infer includes pressure on the PRO rep to agree to things that aren't necessarily consistent with PROs positions, I think it would be better for PRO not have a vote, but to have a seat at the table to voice an opinion before the league makes its decision. That way the IRP decisions don't have the imprimatur of PRO. (Not that anyone at MLS or PRO cares what I think . . . hmm. I wonder if the PRO rep ever abstains such that the unanimous decision was made without the actual affirmative vote from the PRO rep?)