Fair. But is a deliberate glancing strike of the chin worse or better than a supposedly accidental hand that comes across the eyes and bridge of the nose? Again, both should be easy reds per the Laws—or, at the very least, both are entirely justifiable. But this is the can of worms that the IRP has now opened up.
FYI, the Definitive Angle article gives more detail than the Barkey video: http://proreferees.com/2019/05/03/the-definitive-angle-mls-week-9/ First, it says the intervention to disallow the goal in Minnesota was wrong precisely because it was so subjective. Note in the video Barkey simply stresses it was subjective without rendering an ultimate judgment. This is important, given the result. It’s also surprising to me. That seems a pretty clear foul. I think anything can generate controversy. If “it still generates controversy” is code for “VAR shouldn’t have intervened,” that’s a bit of a sea change. It goes back to how VAR was initially sold. But we know that hasn’t been how it’s been implemented in practice (see: handballs). Second, the language chosen around the AR on the offside is more careful. It says the dynamics of the play generated doubt in the AR’s mind and ARs are trained to keep their flag down when they have doubt. So it says he followed his training. It doesn’t say he was correct to have that doubt in the first place and does not equate the following of training with making the “correct decision.”
Maybe I’m biased as a former GK, but to me that was a clear and obvious foul not the GK. That’s a very effective way to prevent the GK getting the ball, and the nature of the foul makes it look like the GK had less chance than he did.
I've heard that Rubio is being given 2 games for this BTW. I believe an appeal is in progress though, which is why it hasn't been announced.
So @MassachusettsRef, the Rapids appeal was denied and Rubio got 2 games, while Roldan got 0. As you suggested might happen. Again, it goes to show a big fan base/big club gets different treatment at the DisCo.
Having a single committee with the same composition would solve a lot of this. There’s no way the DisCo would have overturned Roldan’s red if they had that option. I’m sure of that. And then Rubio’s punishment would make sense. But two different committees with two different mandates and two entirely different set of members all judging the same sort of stuff (but one from the supplemental or omission perspective and one from the appellate perspective) is a recipe for disaster. The end results here are not surprising if you know what’s going on. The problem is the systems and processes are so opaque that no one readily understands what’s going on, and that leads to conspiracy theories.
Yep, ones I'm even starting to buy into at this point given how the decisions have gone involving the Rapids this season (Nani's non-ejection/suspension, Roldan's vs. Rubio's punishment, now the VAR review on the Glad non-red that appears to have been in error)
Is there anywhere else in the world in any sport that has such a stupid bifurcation? I’ve thought since it first started that it was so dumb the two would combine to one in short order to get consistency, but I was sure wrong on that.