So the PRO week in review is up, and they say it was incorrect to review the non-call on the handball in KC/NE, and it was incorrect to then give the PK (that's the Baldomero review/handball). Barkey also confirms that Unkel was not calling a PK against Seattle, and you hear the audio of him saying it was outside of the area, but "ability to play the ball" kept it from DOGSO. http://proreferees.com/2019/05/03/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-9/ No comment on how a red card can get overturned w/o VAR intervention. He just sort of skips it. I know they can't talk about everything, but that's the first time this year there was a major call that was wrong/reversed after the game w/o VAR. I'd like to hear if they want VAR intervention on that kind of thing, or if it is more in the category of "hey, a red card is fine for that, but the suspension is too much." I know they'd never say that, but by ignoring it, that's the impression PRO is certainly giving.
No comment is comment here though, right? It's too nuanced for fans to pick up on it, but no comment means the VAR was correct not to intervene with Roldan. This is yet again an example where some transparency leads to an expectation for full transparency. The weekly "Inside Video Review" recap has focused on examining actual reviews and, I believe, highlighted a couple missed reviews. Jumping to a "here's why no review here was correct" would be expanding the portfolio and open up an entire new can of worms for PRO to deal with. And jumping to "the VAR was correct not to intervene but we still think the referee was wrong to show red" (if that is PRO's position) is something that doesn't deal with VARs really and is so nuanced that it's almost not even worth trying to explain to fans. PRO did not highlight the Roldan red card as a missed review. That should speak on its own. It doesn't, of course, because of the convoluted system of having a PRO representative (who does not deal with VAR training and efficiency) on the IRP, which then overturn the suspension. But that's the way things are right now.
I know I’m biased as a SKC fan, but I personally didn’t think the Russell play was handling. However, regardless of the on field call, I did not think the play warranted an OFR. Regardless of the on field call, it wasn’t a clear and obvious error. This is a call where the call on the field should stand no matter what.
I'm really impressed by these pieces. Interesting to me, I don't recall anywhere else being quite as explicit about the impact of VAR on OS. PRO says the AR was correct to not flag the OS, and also that it was proper to reverse using VAR. I don't recall anyone else officially saying so clearly that the "correct" call is different in a game with VAR than a game without VAR. (On the handling, I know it is beyond the scope, but I would have loved for him to have gone on and said that this would still not be handling next year....)
These appear carefully scripted to an extent, but I believe that was poor word choice. It's never "correct" to make the "incorrect" call. Theoretically, if the AR believed that it was offside but close enough to allow the attacking opportunity to be seen through, the "correct" call would have been to raise the flag for offside once the goal was in the net. Barkey is saying that the AR was correct to leave the flag down initially; he is complimenting the procedure, rather than the decision, which is why I think it's poor word choice (though from a practical standpoint, following procedure does involve making a decision in that moment, so you can see why he chose that word). The AR said he thought an offside was possible and helped alert the VAR, which is good practice. But since the play actually was offside, the better outcome would have been for the AR to flag the offside once the ball was in the net, explain what he had, and then for the VAR to say "you got it right, check complete." Believe me, the AR is still getting it noted on his assessment that he got it wrong in real-time. So it would be pretty ironic for Barkey to declare it the "correct" call when it is objectively the incorrect call.
I disagree that is what he is saying. He refers to "when in doubt, keep it down," and says the AR was right to keep it down (he doesn't say the AR should have recognized is as OS and been saying "delay." I guess we'll have to see what future comments are.
The last three lines before the sign off seem to speak volumes to me. 5:36 "Video review is never going to be perfect. Due to the subjective nature of soccer there will always be incorrect decisions that sometimes get left on the pitch. However, there is no doubt that video review enhances the overall accuracy of all the officials decisions."
I agree those are the words coming out of his mouth and what was conveyed on this video. The problem is that Nani was offside by about a full yard. There's no way that play was close enough to justify the miss by the AR. And that will be noted as such on the assessment. In the pre-VAR days, this wouldn't have been a "man, that was close--no problem." That would have been a missed KMI from the AR. This is why I think it was a poor word choice and a mistake. There's absolutely no way the assessor and PRO gave the AR an "attaboy" for getting this objectively wrong. He would have been praised for the procedure, but not for the final decision he made, which was "no offside." To the extent it was conveyed in this video that there can be a correct on-field decision and a correct VAR decision that are two different things for the same incident... well, that was unfortunate.
You're already getting a level of transparency to officiating decisions that is unheard of anywhere else in the world, at least to my knowledge. They simply can't peal back the curtain all the way. No other league in the world has publicly revealed and evaluated correct and incorrect calls like PRO and MLS has been for almost a full decade now. Remember when USSF used to do the Play of the Week with Michael Kennedy? There is nothing comparable to what PRO and MLS do with their website and Instant Replay anywhere else in the world. I think UEFA has publicly commented on officiating decisions in the CL and Euros maybe 3 times in 20 years. The VAR incident in the Man City vs. Schalke match. Howard Webb's PK in Poland vs. Austria in Euro 2008 and an offside decision in the same tournament where an Italian defender was off the field that kept everyone off. MLS and PRO do it every week. Don't get me wrong, I would like to hear and know more, but be happy with what you're getting.
I take your point on this call (I hadn't thought it was too close to call when I watched, but figured that was my bad and didn't go back to re-review), but I'm not convinced that they aren't saying that there are OS calls that ARs should not give because they are doubtful that nonetheless should be reversed by VAR.
When push comes to shove, each decision is evaluated on an assessment. If a wrong decision is very close and/or VAR correctly intervenes to fix it, ARs get points back. They are in no way punished in the same manner for a very close wrong decision that they are for an incorrect "expected" decision. But you still always lose something on your score for a wrong decision. You never lose points on your score for a correct decision. Your overall annual score has the most direct impact on determining your employment status. I'll let you determine what the actual incentive structure is for ARs!
So many things wrong with this discussion. I don't know what more PRO could do. It WASN'T GIVEN VIA VAR!!! VAR confirmed that decision wasn't CLEALRY WRONG. I now see why the referees at the World Cup and in the CL have basically abandoned the concept of giving red cards on the field for VC or SFP. There is zero upside to doing lest you have clowns like this questioning your decision. Can you imagine if Kuipers sent off Mane and Vidal on Wednesday for their handbags? The system might have collapsed.
It truly is hard to overstate how poor and damaging that discussion was. That's one of the few places where a mainstream national sports news organization is discussing MLS in-depth on television. And that's the message that is getting conveyed to fans. Moreno just spent a few hours with Howard Webb going over how VAR works, didn't he? How does he come away from that thinking that the inaction from a VAR confirms he agrees it was a red? The concept of "clearly wrong" in the negative (rather than affirmative) direction was totally lost on him, apparently. Also, how does someone as experienced as Marriner watch the clips and think it was the VAR--and not the FO/AR--who said it was a red card? Finally, what is all this stuff about a push causing Roldan to swat and have his arm come up? The player who gets the hand in the face literally has his hand on the top of Roldan's shoulder, which would be restraining Roldan's arm to an extent. Look, I'm fine if someone wants to argue that the contact was negligible or that Roldan didn't intend to hit his opponent in the face. Those are at least good faith arguments. The former would mean this isn't a red card, while the latter really doesn't matter (but we know it does to the larger audience). But all this stuff about Roldan being completely innocent and this being a completely garbage red card is too much. He swung a hand at an opponent. He may be a choir boy generally, but he took a risk here. When the hand makes contact with the face of an opponent, you're giving the referee the option to show red. And once the referee shows red for something like this, there is absolutely no way a VAR will or should intervene to say the card is wrong. The more I watch this and the more I hear the coverage, the more frustrated I get. This is going to end up being a repeat of the Toledo headbutt red followed by the non-red on Nani from Marrufo and VAR. There will be a red via VAR for hands-to-the-face or a non-red that then gets punished by the DisCo. This is going to get worse before it gets better--if it gets better at all.
It wouldn’t be a problem at all if the league supported the referees and didn’t overturn the suspension ... I completely understand where Moreno is coming from — if it’s apparently so wrong that the LEAGUE overturns the red card, both the referee and the VAR end up looking like clowns for deciding the opppsite.
I just had the most spirited conversation with a twitter rando who has apparently decided that PRO doctored the video to protect Unkel and that he absolutely called a penalty because blah blah blah I ended up having to block him because he made it personal.
It literally took one game. One game. Rubio’s red tonight should be a pretty easy red. It’s a swinging arm and retaliation at a stoppage. Not much else should matter. But the result was not worse than Roldan’s. And I question if he hit the face—the one replay I see is that the contact is with the chest. Please do not misinterpret what I’m saying. I think it should be a red. But how is it worse than what Roldan did? If I’m Colorado and I see Roldan’s appeal get granted, I’m lodging an appeal and I’m asking a lot of questions if it gets denied.
I think he got him on the chin. I have a question on the second Colorado penalty: who is credited with the foul committed? The player who pushed his teammate, or the teammate who as a result took out two opponents?
Remember that Colorado was also the team Nani did not get a red card against for his attempted headbutts. As a Rapids fan I'm wondering why the hell Nani got off scot free to go on to beat us with a goal and an assist but Rubio got us a red card, eventually costing us a game. That's essentially 2 points lost to us by the refs making different calls for the same fouls. As somebody who understands the rules, Rubio should have absolutely seen red, but Nan should have as well. MLS owes us a point, which would be a 50% improvement on our current total.
I realize that this is secondary to the discussion of “Roldan: red or no,” but I continue to contend that the real officiating failure here is that Atuesta gets NOTHING. No caution, no sending off, nothing. There is a run-of-the-mill chippy confrontation going on. Nothing special and soon to defuse. Then Atuesta comes charging in with a forceful two-handed shove of an opponent, gets a (now-determined incidental) hand to his face, then embellishes the contact. And, somehow, he is the only of the three principals of this altercation to walk away with no sanctioning (and, as a bonus, to cause the ejection of an opponent). This is the real failure of this situation and we’re instead arguing minutiae of the officiating redundancy tree.