09/07/19 New York City FC vs New England Revolution Yankee Stadium (3:30PM ET) REF: Silviu Petrescu AR1: Gianni Facchini AR2: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho 4TH: Robert Sibiga VAR: Guido Gonzales Jr AVAR: Thomas Supple FC Cincinnati vs Toronto FC Nippert Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Allen Chapman AR1: Jason White AR2: Eric Boria 4TH: Marcos DeOliveira VAR: Victor Rivas AVAR: Benjamin Hall-Volpenhein Orlando City vs Los Angeles FC Exploria Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Alan Kelly AR1: Eric Weisbrod AR2: Claudiu Badea 4TH: Christopher Penso VAR: Geoff Gamble AVAR: Kyle Longville Colorado Rapids vs Seattle Sounders Dick’s Sporting Goods Park (9PM ET) REF: Kevin Stott AR1: Philippe Briere AR2: TJ Zablocki 4TH: Baldomero Toledo VAR: Chico Grajeda AVAR: Jonathan Johnson Portland Timbers vs Sporting Kansas City Providence Park (10:30PM ET) REF: Alex Chilowicz AR1: Jeremy Hanson AR2: Cory Richardson 4TH: Tim Ford VAR: Malik Badawi AVAR: Joshua Patlak
I think you probably already saw what my take was, but to summarize here for the rest of the class... The referee called a foul and issued a yellow to Delamea (NE), presumably for stopping a promising attack. The foul appeared to be for a push in the back. In the process, Delamea did get a touch on the ball, albeit not a particularly strong one. The opponent was still likely to regain possession had he kept his feet. So if there's an obvious goal scoring opportunity here, the VAR would be obligated to recommend a review for a red card. The VAR would also be obligated to check the attacking phase of play leading to the card, including the foul itself. If the foul is not clearly and obviously the wrong decision and the APP is clean, from a technical standpoint, red is the only correct outcome. So the two things to look at would be 1) was it an obvious goal scoring opportunity? 2) was calling the foul clearly and obviously wrong? I really haven't seen a wide enough angle to really judge if it was an OGSO, but I think the second point is highly debatable.
I hadn’t seen your take, yet. So thank you! I think you’ve nailed both questions. On the “is it a foul” question related to VAR, let’s not forget that “a touch on the ball” has been used several times for PRO to justify VAR saying “no penalty.” We haven’t seen that yet with DOGSO. I guess I wonder how PRO could say they want this as no foul without opening up a huge can of worms toward re-refereeing. My hunch is they’ll just say it was never clearly wrong to stay yellow based on likelihood to control the ball or something. Asserting VAR should have never intervened in the first place sidesteps the question of whether or not this is a good foul call.
I didn’t see all the angles, so maybe I’m seeing it wrong, but if you ignore the shove in the back, does the defender’s knee/leg clip the attacker in the follow-through of the challenge that wins the ball? The thinking could potentially be—defender wins ball, then pushes attacker equals yellow, and that’s what Petrescu saw. But if the challenge to win the ball initially was a foul because the defender was always going to have to clip the attacker to make that challenge, then I would think it has to be DOGSO.
Let's see how that works out for them. And I say that with general curiosity. The more I've seen of this one, the more convinced I've become it was a good call. It's clearly DOGSO if it's a foul. And I don't think there's anything close to enough to say it's clearly not a foul via VAR. So you're left in one of those situations where the referees are handcuffed by the technology. Once the foul is called, the VAR has to send it down for DOGSO. And once the referee sees the replay, he has to act and give the red card. In an alternative universe without VAR--let's call it 2015--everyone is pretty okay with the yellow card in the 8th minute or whatever because the foul itself was somewhat borderline and people usually aren't clamoring for DOGSO red cards that earlier if there's any justification to not go red. In other words, this would have been one of those "misses" that almost everyone would have been okay with and wouldn't have created controversy. VAR and the associated protocols ensure the correct result, but it created controversy where there otherwise likely wouldn't have been.
I too am curious, mostly because remember that being "a good call" is not enough to keep a red card from being overturned. They have that whole other category of "good calls from a referee perspective, but not a soccer perspective" or however they have worded it before. More likely they just overturn it w/o any real comment.
It really does have the potential to get interesting. In the past, this is a classic "well yeah sure, maybe it was technically a red card, but it was the 8th minute and Bruce Arena complained a lot and no one was really expecting a red card, so we'll find a way to overturn it." You're right on that front. And a few people here would have grumbled about a subjective decision being overturned, but that would have been the end of it. But how does a league explain its own referees looking at video of an incident for a potential red card when no one was really asking for the red card and coming to the conclusion that it was clearly wrong not to give a red card... only for the league to then say "actually, no, it clearly isn't a red card?" It would be completely nonsensical. You'd have to throw your referees under the bus in a manner and to an extent that hasn't quite happened yet--and that's saying a lot. The league would be asserting that the referee team created a red card out of thin air and just invented a send off that was actually 100% not a send off. The league would be saying "this clearly isn't a red card" when two league officials came to a determination that it clearly was, with one of them freely overturning his own initial decision. At that point, if the league really believed that, how do you not suspend/punish Petrescu and Gonzales Jr. for being completely incompetent? They can't and won't, of course. Because it was a red card unless PRO is willing to say the touch on the ball makes this clearly not a foul. That's the only out I see. And it's not a pretty option.
Well, IIRC, they have overturned at least two other red cards given via VAR on plays people were not looking for red on. Elfath had an off the ball elbow that was missed in real time, and VAR summoned, and he gave red, and they overturned it (without ever releasing the video from VAR!!!). And then Baldo had that Marshall tackle that he didn't show red for, Gantar was VAR and he summoned him, they then went red. Then when they heard it was going to be appealed, Gantar went to the press and gave a reproter (wish I remember which outlet) a crash course in VAR, and said obviously that has to be red. A story was then run on VAR that week featuring Gantar, and then MLS overturned the red anyway. So this getting overturned still wouldn't be as much as throwing refs under the bus as those two were. EDIT: found the story--It was Seattle Time: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...-red-card-on-sounders-defender-chad-marshall/
This seems to me like one of those incidents where if you asked neutral spectators and they really thought about it, the issue is more with the laws than it is with the ruling or VAR. I think it's entirely reasonable to say this is an OGSO, and it was a foul, so by the book it's a red card. But generally people don't like that the rest of the game has to be 10v11. Food for thought: had this happened in the penalty area, the punishment is arguably less severe than outside the penalty area. Since a clear attempt was made to play the ball, I assume this would have been given as a PK and a caution. I also think NE would likely have preferred a PK and a caution to an 8th minute sending-off--sure you have an ~80% chance of giving up a goal, but you stay at full strength to get the lead back. It would be a major change, but I wonder if the IFAB would ever consider changing DOGSO outside the penalty area to apply just as it does within the penalty area. Arguably a PK is a more appropriate punishment for taking away an OGSO than for some other PK offenses where no OGSO has materialized, even if some OGSOs happen to take place outside the penalty area. I think you could also reasonable argue that a DOGSO early in the game is less severe than a DOGSO later in the game. You hear this expressed when people talk about a player taking a "smart" red card late in the game because they really don't want to give up the lead and they don't have much longer to defend. Having an intermediate punishment available might help smooth things over at times and make the referee's job easier, similar to the change to the "triple punishment" situation. For instance, for DOGSO in the first half, you could send off the player, but then at half if the team has one of their three subs remaining, you could allow them to use someone off the bench to get to full strength. This would be somewhat more administrative work but since it happens at a natural stoppage, might be feasible. It is actually a little odd that there is no offense for which the punishment rests primarily on the individual--there are many sports where if a player is ejected, the team is not forced to play short-handed. If the punishment for FAL or a second caution for dissent or time-wasting (maybe any second caution at all) was that the player was sent off but could be replaced, if the team had substitutions remaining, then I would argue it's a lot more practical for a ref to issue those cards, which might lead to less dissent or time-wasting in the long run. Losing a preferred player to a substitute would hurt the team, but wouldn't necessarily change the entire complexion of the game. It would not be a cure-all, certainly a lot of complaining would still happen when players are booked, but if you look at the last World Cup, it seems like it is really important to FIFA that the games be played 11v11. This can often lead to situations where a referee might look inconsistent, or that the bar for red-card offenses becomes remarkably high, so if there were alternative consequences it could make life easier for the referees. In this case with VAR, having an alternative consequence that was not so severe would allow Petrescu to make the call "by the book" without such a huge impact on the game. And with VAR, it becomes more and more difficult to not go "by the book."
I take your point. I had remembered Marshall, which I believe I wrote about when it happened. Had forgot about the Elfath one. As much as I didn’t like those appeals being accepted, I still think this would be taking it to the next level. In an off-the-ball incident, the argument is “sorry, I know you guys think that’s red but as the league we are saying you didn’t have to intervene—should have left well enough alone.” With Gantar and Marshall; it’s the league panel undermining and disagreeing with the subjective judgment of the officials (reckless vs excessive). But here, it would be the league saying that the referees don’t even know what a foul is and/or have DOGSO 100% wrong. With this incident you’ve crossed from judgment that the league disagrees with to flat-out saying referees don’t know how to apply the Laws. It’s an additional leap from my perspective.
Yep. Appeal upheld, red card reversed, and new video angles released: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...iew-panel-rescinds-antonio-delamea-suspension So that is by my count at least three VAR given reds reversed on appeal, to say nothing of the reversal last month on that 100% red (for me anyway) on that nasty tackle from behind. The whole flippin point of PRO was supposed to keep the integrity of the officials out of US Soccer's hands and MLS' hands. Ha ha. Those were the good old days.
The view from the end line seems to show that while Delamea wins the ball, he does so in such a way that he is always going to trip the attacking player, even ignoring the shove in the back. Overturning the red seems to rest heavily on the idea that winning the ball overrides the follow-through. Maybe I’m missing something. In the end, I feel like it is just to reduce the suspension (I assume the league has the discretion to reduce given that they can increase a suspension), but the language of overturning the red card seems problematic.
So was it not a foul? Because if it's a foul, it's definitely DOGSO. There's an unreleased angle that shows it's one of the most DOGSOiest DOGSOs you can have. But they didn't release that, of course. So the IRP is saying that Gonzales Jr. and Petrescu conspired to give an incorrect red card when they should have reversed the foul and given a dropped ball. That is effectively what is being said here.
The MLS post doesn't actually say the red was rescinded, but rather "has unanimously rescinded the one-game suspension and accompanying fine for the red card." I seem to recall that they have actually used language rescinding the red card in the past--am I wrong on that? Could this just be mercy relief rather than actually saying the call at the game is wrong? (Of course, it would be nice if they actually said that if it is.)
What we have now is basically a policy where a team can nullify the suspensions for one (maybe two) soft reds a season. As long as the team doesn't push the boundaries, and as long as the reds were "soft" or "borderline" or in referee parlance "orange" then they suspensions will get nullified. This makes the owners happy, the players happy, and even the fans. It requires sacrificing confidence in the referees, and of course the tolerating the obvious BS nature of the whole thing, as their policy as written is more along the lines of "clearly wrong" rather than "well, I could see that either way." It is a joke, but its the kind of joke they want apparently.
Agreed. And if that was the league policy, whatever. But the league deliberately uses the affiliation of the three panel members to give the whole process credibility within the Laws and in refereeing. There are many problems here. But that’s the biggest one. Because the “same” people saying that something was clearly wrong are actually telling their referees something else. But, you know, they aren’t really the same people.
Yes. And the fact the guidelines say it is clearly wrong mean the fans think it was clearly wrong, which means the Foul was clearly wrong, and their team got hosed. It’s a hopelessly messed up message to fans.
This, more than anything, is what's killing PRO and the individual refs. Refs are making correct, or at least understandable, calls, and MLS keeps leaving them high and dry with these overturns. Instead of explaining that "Yes, that call was defensible but we feel the punishment is too harsh" they make it sounds like the refs screwed up. Then when the refs do actually screw up (the Nani non-red for headbutt against Colorado, for example) they come out and appear to be defending that. I read this forum every week and even I have no faith in the officiating at this point.
These sorts of things are part of the reason why I went from being a season ticket holder since 1996 to not attending any matches at all. I just watch whatever is on TV and then bitch about how screwed up it all is. As long as the expansion fees keep rolling in that's all MLS cares about. At some point it would be interesting to see the referees throw up their hands and walk away. Who needs the headaches? The pay can't be that good. And there's certainly no glory in it.
You don't know the referee community very well then. Nobody really pursues refereeing at the professional level for the money. It's a pride, passion, and ego thing. Nobody would certainly pursue it if we weren't getting paid, but they are. There will always be some in waiting in the wings and jumping at the opportunity to referee professional games. Look at the measly pay for USL and NWSL. There is no shortage of officials for those games. The best referees in this country will not just walk way from MLS. Half the guys in the league are so invested in this as a way to make a living, that they can't really do anything else anymore even if they wanted to. There was a referee in PRO who was a full-time professional referee for over 10 years. He couldn't pass the fitness test and lost his full-time status with PRO. Since he's never really done anything else with his life, he's trying to start a small business to make a living. Referees in this country have put up with way worse and still done MLS. They had assignments pulled for the most arbitrary reasons and they kept coming back (as a group). For first 15 years or so of its existence, MLS was a glorified amateur league in it's standards and referee standards. Crappy locker rooms, embarrassingly low pay, using local officials for most of the spots on the crew to save money on travel, no real training and evaluation system or expectations. Refereeing professional sports is like playing professional it's hard to walk away. You see players at all sports try to hang on and stay in the league as long as they can. It's hard for referees to just walk away from it.