Atlanta United vs Los Angeles FC Mercedes-Benz Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Sergii Boiko AR1: Logan Brown AR2: Ben Pilgrim 4TH: Tori Penso VAR: David Barrie AVAR: Jozef Batko Charlotte FC vs Philadelphia Union Bank of America Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Guido Gonzales Jr AR1: Justin Howard AR2: Meghan Mullen 4TH: Nabil Bensalah VAR: Sorin Stoica AVAR: Jeff Muschik D.C. United vs Chicago Fire Audi Field (7:30PM ET) REF: Mark Allatin AR1: Kathryn Nesbitt AR2: Adam Wienckowski 4TH: Joshua Encarnacion VAR: Kevin Terry Jr AVAR: Ian McKay CF Montréal vs Nashville SC Stade Saputo (7:30PM ET) REF: Timothy Ford AR1: Brian Dunn AR2: Gianni Facchini 4TH: Pierre-Luc Lauziere VAR: Edvin Jurisevic AVAR: Tom Supple New England Revolution vs New York City FC Gillette Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Ted Unkel AR1: Corey Rockwell AR2: Chantal Boudreau 4TH: Alexandra Billeter VAR: Younes Marrakchi AVAR: Mike Kampmeinert Orlando City vs Columbus Crew Inter&Co Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Jair Marrufo AR1: Jose Da Silva AR2: Tyler Wyrostek 4TH: Marcos DeOliveira VAR: Jorge Gonzalez AVAR: Robert Schaap Toronto FC vs FC Cincinnati BMO Field (7:30PM ET) REF: Victor Rivas AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Kyle Atkins 4TH: Renzo Villanueva VAR: Alejandro Mariscal AVAR: Jonathan Johnson FC Dallas vs Real Salt Lake Toyota Stadium (8:30PM ET) REF: Abdou Ndiaye **MLS Debut AR1: Cory Richardson AR2: Andrew Bigelow 4TH: Ismail Elfath VAR: Fotis Bazakos AVAR: Claudiu Badea St. Louis CITY SC vs Seattle Sounders CITY PARK (8:30PM ET) REF: Lukasz Szpala AR1: Matthew Nelson AR2: Ricardo Ocampo 4TH: JC Griggs VAR: Carol Anne Chenard AVAR: Fabio Tovar Colorado Rapids vs Minnesota United Dick’s Sporting Goods Park (9:30PM ET) REF: Filip Dujic AR1: Brooke Mayo AR2: Christian Clerc 4TH: Brad Jensen VAR: Luis Guardia AVAR: Joshua Patlak LA Galaxy vs Houston Dynamo Dignity Health Sports Park (10:30PM ET) REF: Allen Chapman AR1: Jeremy Hanson AR2: Felisha Mariscal 4TH: Elijio Arreguin VAR: Younes Marrakchi AVAR: Mike Kampmeinert Portland Timbers vs Sporting Kansas City Providence Park (10:30PM ET) REF: Drew Fischer AR1: Micheal Barwegen AR2: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho 4TH: Malik Badawi VAR: Jorge Gonzalez AVAR: Tom Supple San Jose Earthquakes vs Austin FC PayPal Park (10:30PM ET) REF: Chris Penso AR1: Chris Elliott AR2: Eduardo Jeff 4TH: Alyssa Nichols VAR: David Barrie AVAR: Jozef Batko Vancouver Whitecaps vs Inter Miami BC Place (10:30PM ET) REF: Joe Dickerson AR1: Chris Wattam AR2: Stefan Tanaka-Freundt 4TH: Alain Ruch VAR: Sorin Stoica AVAR: Jonathan Johnson
Debut whistle for Ndiaye, although he has a few 4ths from earlier this season. I think that may be Clerc's league debut at AR, but I need to run my numbers.
Always RSL, huh? Also, I have gradually noticed that a ton of the games played in Canada seem to have Canadian ARs and 4th Officials lately, more than you would expect on just a "these people are slightly more likely to be selected because they're local" level like you'd see for other cities. Has it always been this way and I'm just noticing it now? I would swear it's become less common to see American officials in those roles. And if it is a real trend, I wonder what is causing it.
Quite a meteoric rise for Abdou. Barely starting out in PRO in late 2021 to MLS in 2024. Meanwhile someone like Elvis Osmanovic or Elijio Aregguin don't even get a sniff.
This is from an email I got (I reffed a few games in Baton Rouge during HS season and now I get a zillion emails via Assignr): It's crazy for me to think that someone who started reffing at about the same time I did, in the same state, is now in MLS.
TFC - CIN 80’ Rivas played advantage on a pretty clear PK and goal was scored always nice when that works out kind of surprised he’s on this game so soon after the incident last year; it’s not like this is some prime assignment that everyone is aiming for but I guess everyone has moved on? still, always good to avoid potential controversy if possible
I am with you. Does he have any chance of retaining control of the ball. Second does the ball actually hit the attackers hand before it hits him in the face?
Those would be my two big ones, yes. And the follow-up to that second question is whether or not an accidental handball can negate DOGSO after-the-fact. I think this has come up before. Accidental handling is not a foul, per the Laws, until the goal is scored. So it's not really a foul here, except it means there can't be an OGSO on the play. So it kind of is? And if the accidental handling does negate the DOGSO, what's the VAR supposed to do? Not call him over at all because there's a potential infraction that means it's not really DOGSO so not reviewable? Call him over but call the APP foul (this seems wrong, because again, it's not a foul until a goal is scored)? Or, call him over for DOGSO but show him the handling so that the result is a DFK going in but no red card? It's like there is no correct book answer here. We're just flying by the seat of our pants on a major KMI decision that is supposed to be at the clear and obvious threshold. For what it's worth, I think it does hit his hand. If you slow the play down from one of the available angles (from the side), you can see it clearly deflects before it hits his face. So it hits him twice and it very much seems like the first contact has to be the hand. But I would imagine everyone just missed this, to be honest. Because if they did see it, I can't wait to hear the audio to see what the reasoning is relative to the paragraph above. And then, yeah, even if you get over the accidental handling issue, you are left with whether or not a guy who got blasted with the ball so hard in the face that said ball careemed over the goal line from 20 yards away would have been able to control the ball and score before the ball went over the goal line. I have doubts there, but I think you probably also have to lean toward saying he would given the overall optics. Visually, this looked like straightforward DOGSO. But there might be two very good reasons why it wasn't.
With nothing to back it up, I wouldn’t think the accidental handball here is enough to negate the OGSO. At least in PRO speak, immediate means the next touch of the ball and given the direction and pace of the ball, I think there is enough to suggest that perhaps this player has to take an extra touch. It’s a great theoretical question but I think when the world expects a red then parsing millimeters and theoreticals doesn’t do the game justice. I don’t know if that player can get the ball. He got smoked in the face and probably was going down. But we’ll never know. I think the benefit of the doubt has to go to the attacker in these situations and he has to be given a chance to get the ball until he can’t. Assuming he’s going to be injured isn’t a great defense for giving yellow instead of red in my opinion. If you remove the possible injury, I would have said all 4 criteria are there.
If you don't have accidental handling there, I think the correct decision is pretty clearly a red card especially with how cynically Guzan lifts his leg to trip the attacker. If you do, then the obvious answer is a DFK coming out. It's reason #9086 why the accidental handling law is so dumb. Instead of writing it explicitly in the laws and then providing arbitrary boundaries which are open to interpretation and wiggle room themselves (when do you consider a goal scoring opportunity immediate and not?), they could have just given blanket instruction (which they kind of were doing anyways) about any accidental attacking hand ball in the penalty area being a DFK coming out. And then just live with the occasional unfair goal being allowed for whatever reason and let the amateur referees do whatever they want anyways. Because they don't really care about the impact of the law changes at the lower levels. I mean look at the goal Oliver allowed in the Arsenal vs. Everton match. Pre-law change and VAR some might have argued that it was unfair goal, but we would have just accepted it. Imagine if that was the goal that had decided the league title actually? Dale Johnson could have written two columns. Was it accidental or deliberate and if it was accidental was it an immediate goal scoring opportunity and where do you draw the line?
If the ball does indeed accidentally nick off of the attacker's right arm, I think the correct outcome is DFK for LAFC and YC to Guzan for SPA as there can objectively be no OGSO but also the handling is not a foul because no goal was scored. If the ball does not make any contact with the arm, I still think the best and preferred outcome is DFK for LAFC and YC to Guzan for SPA because I don't think there's any likelihood of Bogusz successfully gaining possession of the ball before it goes out of play. I highly suspect that an ATL appeal of this sending off would be upheld.
3:10 The ball absolutely hit the attacker's hand, here's the mid-frame screengrab showing it changing direction as it hits the hand. So then you start getting into the weeds a bit, don't you? Becuase if you're calling this an OGSO, he wouldn't be able to score it due to the accidental handball. However, if the goal had been scored here and it goes to VAR, the goal would be removed and a DFK would go to Atlanta because of the handball right? And regarding the attacker regaining possession, right before he is fouled, it actually looks like he might be stable back on his two feet and is ready to run the instant before he's fouled I dunno, thinking about it, I think a yellow card SPA might have been more accurate?
If you really get into the weeds, how is there even a promising attack if he can't score legally? At the most basic level, I just think this is a scenario that IFAB didn't account for when it introduced the accidental handling law. And I think they definitely didn't think about how it would play out with VAR. Some additional thoughts... First, I think it's likely in this situation that the VAR and CR didn't identify the accidental handling. I think it's there and was using the exact same frame. I think it's clear. But I would wager it simply wasn't identified. So when talking about this particular incident, it's really not that interesting because "what did the VAR do" probably doesn't even apply. Second, also for this specific incident... I'm not sure I agree here. A player gets smoked in the face (by a legal play of the ball) and stumbles. This is where the theoretical and practical come into conflict. Sure, theoretically this is clear DOGSO. If we are slaves to the Law, it's probably close to a slam dunk. But we aren't that far removed from an era where "book referee" was an insult. Maybe it's important not to have "book VARs," too. The idea that he got hit in the face the way he did probably means a goal is very unlikely. And if a goal is very unlikely, how is it still an OGSO? So on this specific incident I think you have two outs that make this not DOGSO. The handball is the legalistic way out. And the potential head injury is the practical way out. I think Atlanta will win an appeal here. But the most interesting aspect is how the accidental handball law meshes with the DOGSO law (and particularly when VAR is layered in). So let's imagine for a moment a similar but slightly different situation where EVERYONE agrees DOGSO standards are met and everyone also agrees there is accidental handling by the attacker immediately prior to the foul... What's the right answer? If seen correctly on the field, the referee can't give red, right? If a goal can't legally be scored and the referee discerns that correctly, he'd essentially be misapplying the law if he gave red. I guess yellow is the safe harbor, but even SPA sounds wrong. The accidental handling basically creates a scenario where a goal can't be scored. So why do we care about any tactical nature of the subsequent defensive foul? I think I get to a point where no card is the answer but the attacking DFK is still given. I'd hope there was some sort of reckless aspect of the challenge to sell a yellow, but barring that, I think it's a no card situation. Now, same set of facts but referee misses everything. Now what from the VAR? In theory, he can only send down a clearly missed red card. So if it's not a red card, can he send it down? I mean, he can. But is he supposed to? I don't think there's an actual answer here. One can argue "yes, send it down and then show the referee the APP offence like with other situations" but the problem is this isn't an APP offence. It's a potential offence IF a goal is scored. In reality, it's more of a fifth consideration for DOGSO, right? And if it's a consideration, we're back to no VAR intervention and the foul goes unpunished. But I'm sure people don't like that result. I think this can be argued in circles. I don't think there's an answer. I'm sure PRO will say something, but they will either be making it up on the fly or will consult IFAB (who will make it up on the fly).
I feel like having this conversation at the monitor would add a long delay to the process, so maybe they just went with DOGSO (even if they saw the handball) as the simplest answer and then let PRO decide afterwards if this never before seen incident was done correctly or not. The good thing about completely unforseen incidents like this happening is that it can potentially set a precedent for the future depending on whatever answer IFAB or at minimum PRO comes up with. I hope this has a decent segment on Inside Video Review and we can hear what communication was going on and also what Barkey says.
I *think* the correct VAR protocol would be far less than it used to be. It’s relatively recently that IFAB tried to get every scenario in the magic book. It’s not that long ago that the Laws were the tools for refs to exercise their best judgment on thinks as they arose and “in the opinion of the referee” were some of the most important words within the Laws.
To be clear, no one on the officiating team identified the accidental handling. I suspected as much, but now I've had that suspicion confirmed. This went from not a foul to not really a foul to yeah it's a foul but maybe not DOGSO to actually yeah it's DOGSO as the process evolved. Which sort of belies the idea that anything about this was clearly wrong even without the handball component, but what do I know?
Well that's concerning that none of them even saw the handball then. But I still wonder that, even if they had, what the result would have been. Will be very interesting to see what Barkey says
I don't think it's that concerning they didn't see handling here. It's not clear and obvious by any means. We have a shot above showing multiple frames to get a nick on the ball. But, I agree I'd like to know what they'd have decided if they had.
This is awful by Klauss Anyone know what the fine is for this blatant cheating? Is it substantial or a slap on the wrist. João Klauss has been fined for “simulation-embellishment” after this bit of silliness. pic.twitter.com/lB0zTmICQp— Jeremiah Oshan (@JeremiahOshan) May 28, 2024
It is clear and obvious though, especially considering all the camera angles and slow motion they use. This is just from the highlight video. It’s clearly evident to see. You can see the deflection it takes off the wrist before hitting his face https://streamin.one/v/e0c6e1cb
But the standard isn't whether the handling was clear & obvious, but whether the referee not calling it was clear and obvious error. I realize it is playing linguistics, but the difference is important. It's the same reason the EPL's approach to offside is so fundamentally wrong. When a replay shows that there was in fact an offside violation or handling, it doesn't necessarily mean the official committed clear error in not calling it.