2022 MLS Week 21 Referee Discussion

I don’t see it. The touch is legitimately backward from goal (yes, “away” from goal is general guidance but this touch is forcing him back before he can square to shoot), the likelihood of control does have some doubt, and you have a couple players between him and the goal—even if they can’t challenge if he does immediately control, their presence complicates it all visually at minimum (and more so if he doesn’t take a perfect next touch).

It’s a good goal scoring chance. But I think you’ve got at least small elements of doubt on three different components. Proximity to goal is the only once that’s crystal clear. Plus, no one really expects red here. And I think that matters in cases like this.

 

First one was standard, if the intervention maybe was a little late. Second one was ridiculous on Atlanta’s part.

 

And…?

I know you know he doesn’t have to be on his line for Rivas to whistle. But more to the point here, the whistle had gone seconds before the kick was taken. Everyone else on the field was ready. He just seemed to ignore the whistle. It was bizarre. Keeper had plenty of time to be ready. Definitely not on Rivas here.

 

Again, if VAR isn’t going to act, do away with it. COL:CIN
Clear shirt pull in the area. It’s a foul, it’s a foul, it’s a foul.
It kept the player from getting to the ball before the keep.
But it doesn’t matter. A shirt pull is a foul regardless the outcome. it is clear error not to call it.

 

Then far more is wrong. if he saw a shirt pull and didn’t call it, he needs to find another job. I’m not saying there aren’t trifling shirt pulls.
But when the shirt stretches from the body and it keeps the player from getting to the ball, considering it trifling is as much clear error as missing it altogether.

 

100% agreed.

De Oliveira should have called it live. It's "soft," but consequential. It's a shirt pull that worked and accomplished its goal. It should be a penalty. De Oliveira had the necessary angle. It's a poor decision to play on there.

The VAR question is different. The idea that a "shirt pull is a foul regardless of outcome" just doesn't mesh with reality. VARs are instructed--in all competitions, to my knowledge--to have a very high bar for intervening on uncalled potential holding fouls. The very idea is that a lot of holding goes unpunished in every match so the VAR has to be sure that the holding isn't trifling, isn't consistent with what has been (or will be) allowed in the match, and that it is consequential. Now, you can still fault Rivero for not sending it down based on all that. But if De Oliveira is in his ear saying he saw a hold and it "wasn't enough" or something similar, the bar becomes incredibly high.

Part of me suspects PRO says nothing precisely because the bar is so high and privately backs Rivero re: the decision to not intervene. But it's a national tv game with some attention on it, so maybe we'll hear otherwise. This is one of those cases where we are talking about two subjective decisions with two different thresholds, so not a ton to be gleaned from it (or to be gained from it by PRO). I could be wrong, though.

A very interesting related question to all this is whether it's a DOGSO-red card if the penalty is given. Actually, it's not really a question at all. It's stone-cold red. But no one has focused on that because we never got to that stage.

 

Would be good to hear what happened at 77' to change that goal kick to a corner kick. Because I think the suspected avenue is probably what really happened. And that's not good.

 

I interpret more as they invited him and he accepted.

I'm torn. The confidence he had in doing so and the clarity of the decision (which were undoubtedly related) allowed it to work. But if you do that and it's at all debatable or not as you described it... well, that doesn't end well.

 

Well, given the penalty Chapman and Fischer gave via VAR in Nashville, I think PRO is boxed in to saying that the no-call at 11' in Columbus was a missed intervention.

Or, they could say the intervention in Nashville did not meet the threshold. But the hold was so blatant that I doubt they'll go that route.

This is the problem with holding and VAR. You have a more blatant hold in Nashville that goes missed because it was off-the-ball and more consequential while you have a "softer" hold in Columbus that the referee choose not to call but undoubtedly worked and denied an OGSO.

 

maybe I worded it poorly. There are trifling pulls on a jersey. But my point is, once the pull gets obvious, like this case or other cases where there is a lot of separation between to hand and the body and a large stretch of the jersey. Your hands are tied regardless of impact of the pull.

The law doesn’t require impact other than impeding and when you see 8” of jersey, everyone know there was impeding. Here both the ref and VAR refused to correct it.

It is inherently unfair to ignore a call that changes the game this much: pk and a send off.

 

I think this is mostly right. I can think of four referees off the top of my head who either don't seem to love going to the monitor or at least present it publicly in a way that makes it seem so. And you've named three of them. Others--like Penso and Fischer, as prime examples--do it very well and have even made it part of their management techniques.

The only thing I'd add is that VARs are judged independently and, long-term, their employment depends on getting as many recommendations correct (in PRO's eyes--not the referees') as possible. So even if a VAR knows that a certain referee is going to be less likely to take their advice, they still have a self-preservation interest in sending it down even if they know it might be a battle.

Obviously, that isn't in a vacuum and there are other dynamics at play. Working as a VAR for a referee less likely to take your recommendation is akin to running a line in your local league for a more egotistical referee. There's are levels of trepidation and frustration built-in to the process. And I think that's what you're correctly pointing out. Does a VAR want to fight this battle in the 11' if, deep down, he believes the referee won't take the recommendation? We can sit here and say he should--both because it's the right thing to do and for his personal long-term interests. But that's easier said than done in the moment.