Occurred at around 29:50ish and Elfath finally blew the whistle to restart at 31:25 (and the free kick was taken 10 seconds later). His back was turned when it occurred. Never did we see hike indicate (on the broadcast) that they were checking, but he pulled aside the two players to chat with them. Given the length of time that went by before the restart, I would assume the VAR had time to look. Whether they caught it or not is another story.
He is definitely in the offside position. The angle I’ve seen shows it quite clearly. The fact he has a foot on the penalty area line and no one else does makes this much easier. Move that a few yards either way and I’m not sure they know for sure. as for the rest. There is definitely a touch by the Seattle player. Whether you think the defender touched it first or not is irrelevant. Either defender played it into attacker making the last player to touch it an attacker. Or the attacker played it into the defender which would quite clearly fail into the deflection (not deliberate) category. In both cases, offside is the correct outcome
I guess no one watches the late Sunday night nationally televised match? This game had so much from a refereeing perspective. Minnesota players--particularly Reynoso--were in Chilowicz's face all match. It reached the point where you just knew Reynoso would be in the same television frame as Chilowicz a second or two after every decision he made. Nashville keeper had a play where he released the ball inadvertently and repossessed it, with no call. You had an inadvertent/wrong flag for offside off a goal kick. Chilowicz did well to come out of it with a dropped ball, but boy did that flag not help the temperature of the match. Chilowicz had a provisional penalty but the delayed offside flag came up. He and Richardson handled it very well on-field and the flag was right so offside was the correct decision, but it took Touchan way too long to check complete the offside. There was a penalty appeal for Minnesota with two clear hands in the back of their attacker, but you might also say he kind of went down easily. I was surprised it wasn't called live, though. Looked more penalty than not. I have more mixed feelings about non VAR intervention. Then there was a fascinating situation in the penalty area where Sapong and Boxall squared up and Sapong was grabbing Boxall by the side of the neck while the Minnesota keeper possessed the ball. Chilowicz pulled both players aside to dress them down while calling the free kick coming out (sensible decision) and clearly instructing Touchan to look for what set everything off. Replay ultimately showed Boxall had struck/punched Sapong in what looks like the kidney or lower ribs with some degree of force while the ball was in the air and they were both standing in the penalty area. I don't know if Touchan missed it or if he reasoned it was trifling, but I think it's a bad outcome either way. Seems like the sort of thing VAR should catch for a penalty + red card (yellow at minimum); though nothing Chilowicz himself could have done differently as he wasn't even looking in that area and he'd be looking through their backs anyway. All in all, just a LOT going on in this match.
I just don't understand what PRO sees in Chilowicz. I just don't get it why he is so highly rated by PRO with his assignments. I get it's a 30 team league and you need all the bodies you can get, but everytime I have seen him, I have never been impressed. I understand you need different personalities and styles. I get it that he seems to be player friendly and has a good repoire with the players, but they just don't respect him and they certainly don't fear him. Time and time again, I see players just walk all over him. He almost never wants to be the bad guy out there. That two handed shove no call was bizarre. Was he about to signal a foul coming out?
Thanks for your comments.... The other question for me is whether or not this rises to the level of "clear and obvious error". The goal was given on the field, and nobody from RSL made any sort of protest indicating that they thought the play was offsides. In fact, both teams were lined up waiting to kick off when the VAR told the CR to go to the monitor, while the announcers were discussing whether Ruidiaz would get credit for the goal or whether it was an own goal. So to me (granted I am a Sounders fan) this feels a little bit more like re-refereeing rather than overturning a "clear and obvious error". And as a fan, I don't want to see goals being overturned unless it really is a clear and obvious error....because celebrating a goal that then ends up being overturned is soul-sucking for the players, and not much fun for the fans of the team that scored either. I'd like to see the bar for VAR intervention set much higher on goal overturns.
I was confused how Sapong escaped a red card... he was holding/pulling Boxall by the neck and ear for an extended period of time. I don't understand how you let that go with just a talking to. I must've missed the replay showing the play that started the whole scuffle, as I don't remember seeing Boxall striking Sapong.
It did seem clear that the players knew that they could walk all over him. The GK double possession should have been on St. Clair, MNU's keeper, not Nashville's.
The still shot from the broadcast shows him a full yard offside. It really doesn’t get clearer than this. It’s also wildly ironic that in just a few posts above you, someone is arguing about the 3” decision not given in Cincinnati and that it should have been overturned. Supporters are always going to choose what benefits their team and I get it. But we have to agree that a full yard is enough to call clear and obvious
Agree on that. The replays I saw made it seem a lot closer....both because of the question of when exactly the ball was last touched by a Seattle played and where precisely the PIAOP was at that precise moment in time.
Just watched these incidents. Regarding the last....penalty plus yellow card for Boxall and then red card for Sapong seem like correct outcome?
I don't know. I think you could have a range of plausible answers here. Honestly, Boxall didn't really react all too terribly to what Sapong actually did (the weird/ear hold). And Chilowicz was right there and seemed to defuse the situation well. I don't think you have to send off Sapong for VC given what standards seem to be now in the professional game. In fact, I think a red card for Sapong given the totality of events would be seen as an overreaction by PRO (unless you're sending them both off). As for what Boxall did... I don't believe any officials--including the VAR, based on what I heard--ever actually saw what started this whole incident, so I think we have to calibrate any post-match analysis to that fact. With that said, I think the question is whether or not what Boxall did was: A) trifling or not and B) violent or not? Given what it prompted and how gratuitous it was, I don't think you can say it's trifling. It's a deliberate strike/swat/punch (one of those) to the abdomen/rib area. So I think it has to be a penalty as it is a clear missed incident. And then, is it violent? Given the point of contact, I think there is a strong argument that it was. If Sapong had gone down and clutched his ribs, we wouldn't even be discussing this. So for me this is one of those situations where we shouldn't downgrade the punishment just because the victim didn't dive. So I'd have a red card, too. But it's all just a really weird play because no one saw what started it, Sapong delayed his reaction, and then the reaction was peculiar on its own. It was a weird play capping off a weird match.