P/I/P, Match 29: Revs @ NYC, 9/7/2019 3:30pm

...which indirectly supports the view publicly expressed by Arena and by many on this board that that call was a game-altering piece of excrement.

 

Absolutely. Ruined what should have been a great game, where the Revs had gotten off to a brilliant start.

And, a huge impact on the standings.

To think that this mistake happened because of VAR should be ringing some alarm bells about problems in the process.

IMO, having a ref run to the sideline to view a replay, when his heart is already thumping because of being in the midst of the match (you could see sweat running off him), knowing that there's is time and fan pressure, having to lean over to look at a small screen inside a shadow box and make an evaluation in a few seconds ... it becomes understandable how he could get it wrong (not that I want to defend Petrescu!).

VAR is fraught with problems. It was evident in the WWC and it's evident in MLS.

FIFA/USSF/MLS needs to think about the philosophy of the game. It has always been the single sport that gives the most deference to the individual judgment of the ref on the field, in the moment. You can't just change that, without acknowledging how that is embedded in the fiber of the game, without running into massive problems like this.

With VAR, you'll continue to have more and more attackers doing things like running to and into defenders legs, creating contact that they hope will get them pk's.

 

Too bad they can't rescind the results of the game too!!

 

Here is the PRO explanation.

They say that IF it is a foul, then it is DOGSO but they think it should not have been a foul.

They say that the video review official had to start with the foul called and was right to ask for review, but Petrescu could (and should) have waived off the foul.

Intersting

 

I think PRO needs to put some more thought into the VAR process.

The VAR booth has multiple angles and multiple people looking at this. I understand the booth first needs to focus on whether or not it is DOGSO. Once they decide that, they should look at the whole play. Along with the recommendation for review of DOGSO, they should also be reminding the Ref to make sure it is a foul first and maybe suggest that in this case it might not be.

From watching the PRO video linked above, the booth tells Petrescu to come review the play to decide DOGSO and red card. No mention of make sure it is a foul. They also have the video teed up at the point where Delamea has already cleared the ball away and is in contact with the NYCFC player. Because of what the booth has told Petrescu to review, his focus is naturally on where the other defenders are in the frame of the shot to confirm Delamea is the last man. He is not likely to rethink the foul he already called in real time.

PRO is putting the onus on Petrescu to have the presence of mind to ask the booth to rewind the play to rethink the foul call they did not ask him to review .To me, asking him to review the play for a potential red card with no mention of confirming the foul first gives him a confirmation bias that his initial call was good and may not have gone far enough.

Additionally he is under pressure to get the game moving again. And he is looking through his sweat drippings into a little box on a sunny day. I am not a Petrescu fan and he was terrible in this game. That said, the booth could have helped him out a lot more in this situation. The game likely would have been better if both teams remained at full strength after this review.