Agreed. At this point, other than process my biggest fear has to with SFP. For SFP to be given by VAR, it has to be "clear and obvious" and that is a very high standard, as we know and have already seen. So you're just not going to see a lot of SFP cards given via VAR. In particular, you're never going to see SFP cards given on the borderline tackles that we've been trying to eliminate from the game. Take this caution on Ridgewell, for example: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...and-timbers-vs-la-galaxy/details/video/113609 He knows exactly what he's doing. He steps on the achilles/back of the calf of his opponent, facing completely away from goal, at midfield, with no attempt or possibility of playing the ball. Is there enough force to go red? I don't know--maybe not in this situation? But the nature of the tackle is very close to SFP. Now, my point here isn't to say that VAR should be giving a red because VAR should not be giving or suggesting a red based on the established protocols. But my fear is that because tackles like this will literally never be getting reds via VAR, the expectations for what should be red will shift and you'll see referees shy away from giving SFP reds generally, ultimately resulting in more dangerous tackles. So the overall fear is that, perversely, VAR could encourage more borderline SFP tackles (while it cuts down on VC, gets more penalty decisions correct, and ensures no bad goals are awarded). Hopefully there's a way to avoid this phenomenon.
How about the fact that it's upright so anyone with a decent camera lens can see it. Don't they hide the video review monitors in other sports? Or at least not put it on public display.
I guess maybe it depends on stadium logistics. In DC it was on the endline with a big roped off area around it that had "authorized personnel only" sort of signs. One of the ball boys got yelled at by security for going through the zone to hop over the fence to get the ball. On the field side there was a technical area type dashed line drawn on the grass. The matches where I saw it used (Philly and Portland) it was on the endline as well.
In rugby they often have the referee use the big screen as they talk to the TMO, so in the sport that replay probably works the best in, it's incredibly transparent.
I noticed that as well. In the Dutch league example we saw the other day the monitor was more flat and seemed to have one of those security things over it so you couldn't view the monitor from an angle. Other sports seem to vary. I don't know about rugby, but cricket reviews are shared on TV and in stadium most of the time. Aussie rules also shows it on TV and in-stadium I believe. But those are more black and white sorts of situations for the most part and less subjective.
It was the closing seconds of the game, the Timbers had a 2 goal lead, they had no interest in a quick free kick, nor did they (to my eye) seem to attempt one. Furthermore, after the game Fischer answered questions about the incident as follows: Question #2: "Why did you refuse to give the Timbers 10 yards on a free kick in second-half stoppage time after they asked for it?" Answer: "In my opinion the opposing players had retired the required distance at the free kick." Follow up to question #2: "So you decided -- to follow-up to clarify the second question -- you determined that was 10 yards?" Answer: "Correct." Presumably if the Timbers had indicated they wanted to take a quick free kick he would have said so in the response. At no point in time had the opposing players retreated anywhere near 10 yards on the attempt. I can't fathom why he wouldn't give them the 10 yards as requested.
...prompting yours truly to unload upon my long-suffering co-watchers a short-ish seminar on when the ball is in play on a restart in the PA.
I'm not disagreeing with Rugbys method they have a proven track record of good behavior and transparency. But I think I'm terms of civilized discussion and understanding by players and fans Rugby is to soccer as ballroom dancing is to a mosh pit.
At Minnesota United Saturday night the monitor was set up like that. Midfield, very upright. I referred to it as the VAR shrine, glowing on the sideline. It was never used. The VAR confirmed the goals and a couple offside calls that disallowed goals.
What's not to understand? He thought it was 10 yards already, so he did give them the distance. He may have been wrong about it being 10, but he was not wrong in concept. Once he said the opponents were back far enough, that is a fact of the match. Players don't have a right to argue about whether or not he is right about the 10 yards, they need to play. (All that said, it is surprising that [based on what others have said here -- I haven't seen it] that a referee at that level would be so badly off, especially in the short direction.)
It was no more than 7. Like, not even in the realm of if-you-squint-then-maybe, which is what made it so odd.
It's a control play. High school students will do it with their teachers too. If I'm feeling like I'm not in control and I can form a request in such a way to make an authority figure jump when I ask then it gives me a feeling of control. If he/she doesn't comply then the talking-points become whether the authority is required to or not... obfuscating the fact that I'm stalling the match further. As has already been pointed out, in his opinion, the opposing team had already given the required 10.
Okay, curiosity got the better of me and I just went back and watched the whole thing on MLS Live. Recapping the key points, all +/- within a second of each other... Six minutes have been added on, Fischer has gone past the six (not sure if that's because of additional delay or because he always planned to do 6.5, but regardless). 96:29 - foul is called against LA 96:53 - after some polite LA protest over the call (and LA defender is holding the ball through most of the preceding period), the ball is finally set where it's supposed to be and we're ready for the restart 96:58 - Fischer attempts to set the wall, without the spray, with his arm at about what I'd guess is 9 yards (camera angle is not the best but the ball looks about 3 yards from the touch and he's trying to set it about one yard past the 11-yard mark, so 12 - 3 = 9). The three nearest LA players all eventually retreat to about that point, even if just for a moment or two. 97:02 - Fischer whistles and all three LA players are inside that 9 yard mark in under a second, before the ball is played, with one of them likely getting as close as 5 yards. 97:02-97:11 For about ten seconds, Portland refuses to take the kick with Valeri marching forward, showing that he doesn't have 10 yards. The LA players back up a little while this is happening, but certainly not to 9 or 10 yards. Fischer is walking into manage all this but is clearly encouraging Portland to take the kick. Valeri turns to Guzman, standing over the kick, telling him not to take it. 97:12 - Fischer, now a couple yards away, whistles again for the kick. 97:14 - Fischer leans into Valeri and whispers something in his ear (I can only guess, but I would imagine it's something as simple as "just take the kick" and/or "the match is over"... perhaps even shorter than that) 97:19 - Valeri, now back closer to Guzman, visually dissents with the "get out of here" arm swing. 97:22 - Fischer has had enough and cautions Guzman for not taking the kick. 97:35 - Guzman finally takes the kick, backheeling it to a teammate, who then dribbles toward the corner. 97:39 - Fischer whistles for full-time. I only have two thoughts. First, there's got to be a reason Fischer chose Guzman and not Valeri for the caution (and, no, Valeri was not already on one) because the DR caution, given the totality of events, seems a much tougher sell than the dissent (which, even if Fischer helped cause it, still definitely happened). Second, this whole thing is a lesson/reminder of the fact that there is no Law against ending the game at a stoppage. Portland is winning 3-1. Portland has a free kick. Portland doesn't really want to take the kick. The referee was willing to blow full time 4 seconds after the kick is taken. Perhaps (and by "perhaps," I mean "100% absolutely") he could have just blown for full time after awarding the free kick?
Reminds me of a game someone told me about. Don't create these sorts of awkward situations at the end of games just so you can pull the "traditional" full time whistle with the ball in play. If time is up, then end the damn game. To force this free kick to be taken not only creates controversy where there should be none, it invites mass confrontation and perpetuates some myths about when the referee can end the match. Of course, once the referee demands the ball be put back into play, it would also reflect poorly on him if he called time before the restart as it would appear that Portland's delay tactics were successful. Best thing to do here is probably give the free kick and either call time immediately or make a show of trotting over to the spot of the foul, checking your watch, and ending the game if you feel the need to sell that time has expired. The latter technique can be particularly useful if you're in a situation where you must secure the match ball at full time.
Given that his team is trailing an LA player holding the ball while he complains about the call seems like an ideal opportunity to blow for full time.
Now that the replay statistics aren't in favor of the Galaxy... I was coming back to see your opinion on the Galaxy match and this disallowed goal. I thought the Gyasi goal fit right into what you would have been worried about. Several bad things happening in the area, including a possible GK foul on an attacker. But only one is up for review. The handling wasn't the normal deceptive redirect, or hand of God acting job. The coming together of bodies causes Gyasi to raise his arm preparing for a collision while losing sight of the ball. Still, not a "natural" position, so we have handling. Fine, no goal. But yellow on top? You need more than the isolation on the player to see what the player sees, which guides his intent. Which is why I thought this was a case of overstepping the purpose of the replay. Had he cleanly seen the ball, he would have headed into the goal. Not settled it poorly with a hand by his face and poked it in while being challenged.
If that was the referee's opinion it would not be handling. First, if he's raising his arm to prepare for contact, that would be the natural position for the situation. Second, unnatural position is not a substitute for being deliberate, but a tool to help referees decide if it was deliberate. And we know it wasn't the referee's opinion: the caution tells you that he referee determined that he handled the ball in an attempt to score. Can you argue whether or not that is true? Sure, but the caution tells you what he decided.
While there's nothing technically wrong about the card, I must point out there is league precedent for a goal being called off for handling without a card being shown. Kei Kamara, while playing in KC, once slipped in the goal area and ended up bundling the ball into the goal with his arm. Referee (Grajeda) felt the spirit of the game necessitated disallowing the goal, but it was also clearly not an intentional act to score the goal: Kamara was alone and was trying to poke it over the line when he slipped. The argument was made, and still can be made, that the goal should have been allowed by the letter of the Law, much like the argument about Zardes' goal. It's a debate with multiple correct answers.
Vieira said Kljestan was faking it when he got the Red Bulls a penalty kick. It looked like a little contact to me but enough to call it. The announcers thought the Red Bulls deserved a penalty kick when a defender stopped Wright-Phillips from heading the ball after a cross to him and that NYCFC deserved a penalty kick for a handball late in the game. A Red Bull dove with no foul and no card for simulation.
The defender didn't stop Wright-Philips from heading, he barreled into him causing the header to go high over the bar. I'm not a fan of that announcing crew, but I think they were right on that one.