The Fox crew said it was PIADM (not sure if they were getting any help) and Kelly had his arm up on the restart. I was surprised because on the replay it sure looked like Martinez got hit under the arm with the upswing of the leg and boot so it could have been upgraded to a DFK, but either way I thought it was a good call.
for me, it’s the fact that Martinez got trucked by the defender, who did make a play in the ball but whose significant contact was inevitable due to Martinez being ball side. It’s a clear foul and for savarese to say the entire game hinged on that call is just silly.
I really don't understand how VAR didn't get involved there. Martinez got the touch on the ball ahead and got taken out. It's a foul. What more do you need to get involved. It seems like VAR has been pretty much relegated to handling and offside decisions.
United got that call in the conference final where VAR ruled Guzan had possession and it was headed out of his hands into the goal. I liked that one a lot.
I had nice wide view for the entire match. From my vantage, I thought the entire crew, including the RAR, did a very creditable job.
I wonder if this gets to one of those “does soccer want it “ judgments. It seems to me there is a reluctance to call a non-call clearly erroneous where there is a possibility of the R “looking the other way.” I’d love to hear an explanation from PRO on the call and the VAR decision not to send down.
I think the explanation is that the contact wasn't significant enough for it to be a clear and obvious error. I mentioned to someone that I was about 75% penalty on this one. He said he was about 60%. Trouble is, for it to be a clear and obvious error, the VAR needs to be even more certain. It's not enough to say that it's probably a pen or even that most refs would think it's a pen. It needs to be something that a truly overwhelming majority would look at and say "stonewall pen," and I don't think this reached that threshold.
The complaint on the second goal isn't so much for the call that led to it, as the goal itself. Not sure if you could see this on TV or not, but the AR (Eric W.) stood at the flag after the goal. He probably thought the goal scorer was onside on the cross, but offside on the goal if there was a flick (which there was). So I think he wanted to call offside. He and Kelley talked for quite sometime (it seemed like forever), and only a few players noticed from Portland and wandered over. This forced them (R/AR) to wander up the sideline a ways, and Kelley had his arm around the AR talking the whole time. Finally they pointed to the center. My best guess: AR had offside if there was a touch, which there was, and they got help from VAR to tell them that the goal scorer was NOT in an offside position even with the touch. IOW they got the right call, but for the wrong reason. If I'm right on this, then VAR saved a good goal in the championship game. I loathe VAR, but this is a great use of it that rescued the crew.
Weisbrod had no idea what the correct decision was on the second goal. You're absolutely right and I noticed that in real-time. I don't think he was sure of OSP, nor sure about a touch, nor sure about who had the touch if there was a touch. Whether Penso saved him or not will likely never be publicly known. But Weisbrod should have made a decision first.
I noticed it in realtime too and thought "he's standing there but his flag is down so he's unsure. VAR will probably help" Honestly I don't think it matters if VAR or CR helped him there, I'm just glad he had the nuts to not make a decision that he was unsure of. I thought Kelley was OK for most of the match. Martinez made a meal of the "high kick" foul. It looked dangerous in real time as he flung his head back as if he got kicked in the face so I can see why Kelley bought it. I would have been ok either way (and I'm biased). I thought the no call on Nagbe stepping on Valeri right in front of the 18 was worse. Either team could have had a penalty called but both non calls were OK IMO. ATL isn't getting a PK when the attacker flies in, gets a heavy touch and is already going down. He was playing for the contact more than the ball. Portland isn't getting a call on the bodyslam because the player got off his header and MLS/PRO has been very forgiving about contact in the PA all season (even though they said they weren't going to be)
The Parkhurst tackle has raised a question, possibly not applicable in this case, about whether and when "getting the ball" is a defense. I've joined in -- I'll happily take any guidance ... ah, good point. Scissor-type tackles should be a foul, regardless of getting the ball. Also, what's the distinction of "wiping a player out?" Why is that bad? For pro athletes, those dont usually cause injury. We should intricately think about what causes damage and what doesnt— Bobby Warshaw (@bwarshaw14) December 10, 2018 And yes, Fox simply doesn't know what it's doing. They get all excited about "corner-flag cam" and whatever remote cam they were flying around the field right before kickoff, and then they don't show us what's actually happening. Next, they'll just stick cameras inside the ball and on each goalpost.
The problem here is that he does have to make a decision before VAR intervenes. VAR must know what the call on the field is before proceeding. The issue specifically with this call is that Weisbrod's body language showed pretty clearly that he had no clue about something that he really should have had many clues about. Juxtapose his body language against Nelson's from the conference finals in Kansas City. Both ARs are involved in goals or potential goals where there are multiple moving parts and grey areas. Nelson owned his calls and looked completely sure of himself even when his "call" was contingent on other things. Weisbrod was anything but sure, which shouldn't be acceptable in that setting. But more to the point, his uncertainty here demonstrates that he was actually wrong in his assessment. As @jarbitro points out, by standing in at attention, he's indicating the goal scorer was offside if there was a touch from an attacker. First off, the goal scorer wasn't in an offside position, so he has that part (the most important part) wrong. Second, the touch from the attacker was actually fairly obvious and something Weisbrod should have seen. So if he did have offside position, the flag should have gone after the ball was in the net (at which point VAR would have overturned it). Instead, Weisbrod froze and chose a hybrid approach, which sowed the doubts of uncertainty and put Kelly in an unnecessarily difficult position.
Here is the old USSF memo on the subject. Of course it's no longer "official" guidance, but I think it's valuable anyway as a succinct and cogent explanation of the concepts involved. I carry highlighted copies of it in my kit to hand out to coaches and players (and the occasional fellow referee) who raise the question (which is usually framed, loudly and angrily, as "But he got the ball!").
This is a very nice breakdown of the (definitely kinda weird) winning goal: Dirty South Soccer: Making sense of Josef Martinez’s awkward MLS Cup-winning goal: https://www.dirtysouthsoccer.com/20...-josef-martinezs-awkward-mls-cup-winning-goal
Was just thinking about jersey colors and it got me thinking: did MLS guys wear anything other than yellow this season? I think that surely they would have, and PRO typically buys red, yellow, blue (at least they did for 2016) andI can’t seem to find any pictures of them not in yellow this season, but to be fair it’s not like I was digging through match footage. Anybody know?
Interesting composite image of the foul and free kick. Shouldn't the CR (perhaps 4O too) have a better grip on where fouls occur on the pitch? Thoughts? (also shows quite well that the foot wasn't near the head)