Haha, No. As far as I know Stott doesn't have to do that, he just has to get the game restarted. This coach has no right to hijack the game because he's not happy.
The Disciplinary Committee can review red cards and add or reduce punishment, but what can PRO do after games?
Perform the assessment and provide critiques to the ref(s), and if we're EXTREMELY lucky get maybe a point or two of clarification from PRO, for the sake of "transparency." Or else see the refs silently shuffled out of the pool, or to tertiary/quaternary duty....
on a contentious decision like that I think the VAR has to tell the referee to wait and the referee should be waiting. Allowing the quick restart takes VAR out of the equation. It seems to me the best practice on a play like that is to make a show out of the fact that it's being checked/has been checked
Everything is checked. The VAR tells the referee to delay if he needs more time to complete the check. If play has restarted, then the check is complete.
Odd final free kick in Orlando. Anyone see it? Nani grabbed an opponent off the ball and the Atlanta player retaliated by slapping him in the face. Fourth caught it. Yellow to the Atlanta player and free kick to Orlando. I would make a pretty forceful argument that it should have been a free kick to Atlanta and then a red for the retaliation. But apparently the standards for contact above the shoulders and hands to the face are now antiquated. No VAR involvement. Separately, green v green in Portland is, um, interesting. Not having any shorts or socks in white makes it more jarring. Bizarre.
Last week, Cincinnati was in their royal blue and NYCFC in their sky blue. It may be bizarre, but the colors are fairly easily distinguished.
It’s bizarre to the extent it’s apparently never been done. Why now? And while there’s enough contrast in the shirts to make it manageable, from a referee perspective having no light socks or shorts isn’t helpful—particularly for ARs. Make Portland wear white shorts here and it’s a lot easier for everyone.
All behind Saghafi's back and apparently called over the radio by the 4O. And what was the thing on an ATL goal kick where Saghafi stopped play, ran 50 yards back to Guzan, put his hand to his ear, then ran 50 yards back to the starting point and restarted?
Hasn't been done since last week. https://www.fccincinnati.com/post/2...-cincinnati-vs-new-york-city-fc?autoplay=true
You actually sat at your keyboard, read what I wrote in reply to your post, and genuinely thought "he's telling me that Cincinnati didn't play New York in two different shades of blue last week even though I just told him it happened. I'll show him." That was your conclusion? The "it's never happened before" is referencing the fact that these two clubs are rivals since the 1970s, both wear green as their primary uniform, and apparently haven't done so against each other. "Never" is probably too hard to prove (and maybe too easily to disprove?) but it seems like at the very least it hasn't happened in MLS over the last decade. To reiterate and be extra clear here: Portland and Seattle both have primary green kits. They play all the time against each other, for close to five decades now. They never play against each other in green. So it's bizarre that they suddenly have done so tonight. As for your point about last week... yes, dark blue teams play light blue teams all the time. I--and I'm sure many others here--often choose blue as my referee uniform even when a navy blue team is on the field. The contrast there can be better than with other shades. Plus, an ALL navy/dark kit versus and ALL light/sky kit is easy. Seattle's blue shorts add a weird element to the situation tonight and, I'll reiterate, the lack of no true contrasting light/white shade for shorts or socks is an issue, particularly for ARs. That isn't a problem in a dark blue vs. light blue situation. Now, do you want to tell me yet again that Cincinnati played New York last week and everyone wore blue?
the Seattle green seems to darken up a bit when it gets wet. I thought it was a mistake to have both teams in green.
I have several friends who are colorblind. Dark-dark or light-light jersey pairings are problematic enough for them, forget different shades of the same color.
You'd think someone could make a handy guide that could just point out what jersey colors shouldn't be on the field together. I know t's chosen before games by someone, but is there any sort of guideline for it?
Re: Portland-Seattle color combos. In the 2015 USOC, Seattle was hosting, chose black jerseys with “electricity” yellow shorts, and Portland played with their typical home dark green shirt with white shorts. Seattle was so frustrated with the lack of contrast that they changed to their white shirts at the half. As bad as the green/green was, green/black would have been worse. The only good contrast option currently is if Portland is forced to wear their alternate, which I suspect they’d rather not do at home. I fault the league (or owners or Adidas or whoever) for forcing teams to have just two kits. If Seattle had the green primary plus a black secondary and the white kit from last year, they could just use the white kit against Portland in Portland. Even if they don’t want to sell the third kits, it makes sense to have them from a sporting/viewing perspective for games like this.
UEFA and the FA (England) put out a document that had a set of guidelines for avoiding issues for colour blind/colour impaired people. It can be found here: https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFile...epartnership/02/60/10/06/2601006_DOWNLOAD.pdf The Colour Blindness Awareness group also published several other supporting documents: http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness-and-sport/guidance-documents/
I know a lot of people have given MLS and Adidas a hard time for having so many white kits. Games like POR-SEA last night show why requiring each team to have a white uniform, even if it’s a third kit, isn’t such a bad idea. If Portland was going to wear it’s primary kit at home, this was the only option. Dark green vs black at night would have been a mess.
All kinds of fun in Salt Lake - Colorado. A red card, a goal overturned by VAR. A PK. Honestly, I'm not sure why the PK was called. I mean, I get it, it was handling, but its one of those that makes it very hard for fans to understand why that one is handling but why another one is not. I'm assuming the positioning of Abubakar's arm away from his body cancels out the fact it deflected off his hip and into his arm?
I'll have to look at the video but that sounds like the exact same scenario as the one the other night (in Portland maybe?) that wasn't called
Yes, to the question. I watched the replay expecting this to be a tough or doubtful call. But he’s extending his hand laterally with an open palm. That deliberate move has to trump the two mitigating factors—that the ball was played off his thigh and the shot was from close range. There’s nothing natural or unintentional about his arm movement. It’s out deliberately to take away space.
Remember a few season ago when these were their uniforms? Yikes. I think when they played Portland that year, Portland had to wear white. If Portland won't do that, then you get what we had this weekend.
I believe that was the Radford incident with Dempsey, wasn't it? Either way, yeah, I just don't know how these things happen... Found it: