Post-match: Los Angeles FC - San Jose Earthquakes (Wednesday, 8/21) postgame thread [R]

Win or lose, they got our back.

A big thank you to the @SanJoseUltras for making the trip down to LA.

See you Saturday. ⚫️🔵 #VamosSJ pic.twitter.com/wNBtyBuvGD

— San Jose Earthquakes (@SJEarthquakes) August 23, 2019

 

Bobby Warshaw made this video analysis of why LAFC beat us so easily. His conclusion was that Bob Bradley studied us and was well prepared. Actually, the 3 clips he selected more exemplify how poorly Vako, Godoy, and Rios defended. Which I think is because 2 of them are newly integrating into the system, and Vako is too slow at picking up his defensive responsibility. But clearly the Quakes are way too predictable now. I hope Almeyda has a rabbit (or 2 or 3) up his sleeve, or we are sinking like a lead balloon.

LAFC are the best team in league history not because of Carlos Vela (though he helps), they are the best team in league history because they are the most coordinated as a group of 11. Here's a look at what they did specifically to breakdown San Jose: https://t.co/kO9n5bhgQt

— Bobby Warshaw (@bwarshaw14) August 22, 2019

 

I m not saying whether it was pk worthy or not, but, you are assuming that Stott actually saw the handball, when he may not of, which would explain why he felt no reason to take any action. And his inaction was supported by the VAR crew's decision to not request him to review it.

 

We had more shots, more possession, and more corner kicks. They had a lot more defensive clearances. We attacked and created chances, we just didn't have the finishing quality they had.

 

And I have to say that the english language crew that Unimas employs are downright awful. Beside continuously referring to Hoesen as Hose-en, they referenced FIFA's new rules on handballs, etc., apparently not knowing that MLS is not adopting them until next season.

 

I'm assuming that if he did not see the handball, and was fair-minded, he would want to take a look at the replay for himself. I'm also assuming the VAR person was a dolt, or on the take, since the play undeniably deserved a second look.

 

The VAR person very well may have been a dolt, but, it is his/their job to look at the play and then tell Stott that the incident does or does not require his eyes to make the final judgement. In the VAR's mind, the play was clearly not pk worthy and passed that info on to Stott.

 

So Stott decides to rely on what the VAR person says happened, sight unseen (according to your hypothetical), and rather than look at the replay if only to appease an irate coach, decides instead to eject said coach for no stated reason.

That's objectively ridiculous.

 

No actual handball in the box can ever be said to be "clearly not pk worthy." When the ball actually hits the arm of a defender, it should be reviewed. Period. There ought not to be discretion on that score. The VAR system is broken, and this episode is further evidence of the fact.

 

Interesting take on reddit from JazzyJ (who usually doesn't approve of coaches criticizing the refs):

I feel like Matias was taking a stand for San Jose. He's already talked about favoritism in the league, "stars" getting special treatment, etc. Yeah he blew his cool but for the right reasons. How great is it to have a guy like this fighting for us? . . .

 

Perhaps but it doesn't matter.

The referees are instructed to observe all of the Laws of the Game as approved by IFAB. The Video Assistant Referee is just that, an Assistant. They do not make calls. And the VAR additions to the Laws of the Game do NOT say that the referee can choose when to look at replays. That is not permitted.

As currently written, (and they can evolve over time as IFAB reviews the current VAR experience and adjusts), the VAR is the official responsible for reviewing plays. Under some conditions they signal the referee that there may be reason to review a play. Only then can the referee review a play.

Sorry, but this ain't 'Murican football .

 

You're 'Murican now, buddy. No more Tim Horton's for you.

Congrats, sorry I missed the ceremony.

So, the VAR official (as well as to the ill-conceived review system itself) is to blame for the lack of review. But Stott is still to blame for failing to call a penalty in the first instance, as well as for the egregious ejection of Almeyda.

 

Have you guys even looked at the VAR rules?

https://www.mlssoccer.com/video-review/faq

"The VAR may recommend a Video Review to the head referee if there is a potential clear and obvious error on one of four (4) match-changing situations: (1) goals, (2) penalty kicks, (3) straight red cards and (4) cases of mistaken identity. These are the only reviewable plays in a match."

"Will the head referee watch the replays from the sideline in every instance of Video Review?

During a Video Review, a head referee may opt to watch the replays via a monitor available on the sideline in a designated area (the Referee Review Area) OR the referee may opt to use the information from the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) before deciding whether to uphold or overturn the on-field decision.

The final decision, as always, rests with the head referee."

 

Your use of the term egregious is inapt, given that you don't know everything that was said to the fourth official or ref prior to the dismissal. Also, your use of the term "ejection' shows your ignorance of these matters.

 

So, Stott is to blame for not watching the replay, as well as everything else he is to blame for, just as I suspected.

 

the ejection is egregious insofar as it is unexplained. The referee has not provided a reasoned explanation for his actions post-game, as far as I am aware.

And "ejection" is the term the media, including social media, has used. If there is a more appropriate term, please advise.

 

In that, you are correct, sir!

 

A referee is not required to explain him/herself to fans. However, for every sendoff, the referee is required to file with the league an incident report, explaining in detail their perspective of what happened. I do not know of any sport where referees, umpires, etc. are answerable to the masses of fans. That would be unsupportable and nobody would take the job.

 

The absence of reasoned decisions by adjudicators induces disrespect for the office. If fans believe the refs are corrupt, the refs have only themselves to blame. They could diffuse a lot of situations by not acting with such arbitrariness.

In this case, Stott could have conducted a video review, and/or issued Matias a warning instead of a straight send-off (is that the correct terminology?). Situation diffused and we wouldn't be having this discussion about the broken officiating process. The only reason I don't suspect corruption, as opposed to incompetence, is that Stott also failed to review what appeared to be a penalty on Vega's trip of Vela. So there were missed calls in both directions.

 

Does anybody have a link to a video of the foul/no-foul against Vako? I missed the first half of the game, and haven't actually seen it.

 

Apparently neither has Stott.

 

Los Angeles FC - San Jose Earthquakes (Wednesday, 8/21) postgame thread [R]
https://www.bigsoccer.com/index.php?posts/38094924/

 

Replay shows he was screened by LAFC defender, so I’m going with VAR deciding he didn’t need to look at it again. Completely blown call as Vako was letting defender slide by so he would have an open shot. LAFC player used his arm to pin the ball in his armpit so Vako couldn’t shoot. Defender could have lifted his arm to avoid touching ball but he did not.

 

That's a tough one! The version of IFAB Law12 currently implemented in MLS (2018/19) has this to say:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

Even under the new laws, which will be implemented next year, this will be a difficult call. It's not cut and dried by any means.