How about saying you concede the referees acted correctly within a system that you don't think is proper? Is that a fair way to categorize things?
If that near post footage was shot at a higher frame rate maybe it would have been conclusive (one way or the other). Are there any technical reasons that would prevent that possibility?
Looking back on this, I think a red card is probably a more appropriate outcome. It's a dirty play from a player who is constantly out of control and ill-tempered. I just think a red card is a hard sell in a professional match. On another note, MLS referees need to stop indulging Altidore. Seemingly every game he is dissenting or stirring up mass confrontation. There is alway something with him.
Almost. I think Salazar made a mistake not deferring to the CR for a review. When there's contradictory views, it's subjective to say, of the totality of information available, that it was inconclusive and did not meet the threshold of clear and obvious. One angle appears obvious, the other is inconclusive simply because we don't have the frames showing where the ball was when it contacted the defender's foot. It should be up to the CR to make that decision for reasons upon which we previously agreed, given the inherent flaws of VAR. After all, any goal line save is going to be a subjective analysis, as it is with sideline throw-ins, since no AR will ever have a perfect sightline to a ball crossing the line (because of players and goalposts) and the CR's angle will be worse, simply because we're already quibbling over about half a degree across the length of the goal. (I could math it out, if I knew precisely the position of the cameras.) So, I accept -why- the ref crew made the decision they did, but I wouldn't say they necessarily acted correctly.
I think (B) is one of those subjective determinations, since a flinch isn't necessarily the only means by which a nearby opponent elects not to challenge for a ball; merely not playing for the ball when the ball is within playable range because you're face-to-studs can constitute preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. If you've got a handful of players within a couple of yards of you, I think bringing your cleats face-high is certainly worthy of admonishment, even if it is just an IFK and no card. Again, I'm not saying that's -the reason- for Jozy's orangish challenge, but it's certainly a factor I would have looked at.
As long as it is angled, I don't think it can be real-time conclusive unless accompanied by technology that drops the ball location down to the field the way some of the OS tech does. As far as frame rate, cost is probably the biggest obstacle--how much is MLS (which is not printing money the way the NFL or NBA does) going to invest in that for a call that happens once or twice a season across the league. There is a reason WC and EPL have GLT and MLS does not.
That's what I was wondering - is higher frame rate much more expensive? I can't imagine it would be nearly as much as GLT, would it?
On balance I think VAR has been good. It won’t eliminate controversy, but even in a case like the DCU-POR non-goal, fans are at least left with the impression that someone looked at the play. I think there’s an important distinction there—in pro soccer, money matters, so the fans’ perception matters. And when more people are watching on TV than in person, I think that just ignoring video replay sends an implicit message that you just don’t care about the way that most of your paying customers are seeing the game. When I’m at a game now, I’m even comforted knowing that at least there’s someone in the VAR booth watching, and even if it goes against what I’d like to happen, some due diligence has occurred. I also think on balance there has been less dissent and mass confrontation around penalties and other big decisions. Yes, VAR still causes a delay, but it’s not such an ugly delay, and I think it often lowers the temperature of the game, rather than raising it, because players have to kind of chill and wait for the review. I could even imagine doing an OFR as a tool in a PRO ref’s toolbag where sometimes he could even just go through the motions to ease off on dissent and get out of the game 11v11. We also don’t entirely know the influence of VAR on some of the dark arts. You’d think in theory that players are less prone to attempting retaliatory VC when the on-field ref team is focused elsewhere, but it’s hard to measure that. I like that VAR is at least a deterrent. I think it’s also the case that the only way to get better at video review is to pick an implementation and see how it works and ideally adjust the implementation over time. (For instance, I think MLS shouldn’t do OFRs for offside unless it’s a question of whether a player in an offside position interfered with the keeper. Even before VAR, the CR just trusted his assistants to make that call, so I’d like to see VAR take more of that role—just another 4O or AR who has access to replay and can suggest something was missed.)
Took a bit of work, but I've done the PDX situation and the model says anywhere from 0-1.25" over the line (the 0" was over the line, just by less than 1/16th, probably 1/32nd)These are not perfect models b/c of many issues, but signs point to "very likely over the line". pic.twitter.com/hL8iHcIbDz— SoccerPhotogrammetry AKA "A Nice Gentleman" (@OffsideModeling) September 18, 2019
1. The difference isn’t the angle, the difference is the video quality. 2. One angle says goal, the other didn’t have enough FPS to know either way. It didn’t say no goal.
I will agree that based upon the data they had VAR made the correct call. Now why VAR did not have access to the video ESPN TV kept showing is beyond belief to me.
We are still doing this? Sort of, but not really. Given where the camera is positioned on the line, the near side post camera probably would not have indicated goal even with more FPS. And I’ve tried to not say an angle shows “no goal.” My point would be that mirror angles appear to show conflicting conclusions. Obviously, one of those two angles would be factually accurate. But with only that evidence and only human eyes to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe, there was no way to know for sure what the true answer was. The VAR had all angles the broadcast had. It’s not that they didn’t access the far post angle. It’s that the near post angle conflicted with the far post angle and you couldn’t accept either as definitive. So the call stands. OffsideModeling on Twitter has this likely being a goal by as little as 1/32 of an inch, which he actually refers to as “over by 0 inches.” That’s with geometric analysis two days later. If people think that’s enough to say “clearly wrong” in about 2 minutes based on an eye test, I don’t know what to tell you.
And I thought it wasn't but conceded it might have been. I'm just sure, with the available tools, video and standards, you can't change the on-field decision from no-goal to goal (or from goal to no-goal). We're possibly talking about less than 8 millimeters. GLT is supposed to be accurate to somewhere between 2.2 and 5 millimeters, depending upon the exact technology. To say this was close is an understatement. We're talking about nearing a territory where even GLT wouldn't have given an answer with 100% confidence. I believe the closest goal awarded in the EPL via GLT has been 9 millimeters.
After looking at further highlights in the COL/TOR game, it looks like there was plenty of tension between Altidore and Abubakar throughout the game, probably starting with Abubakar's vaguely orange yellow jersey grab against Altidore that got TOR a PK, which makes Altidore's orangish card a deeper orange...Was the temperature between the two of them like that the whole game? 'cause if so, we're back to game management; maybe the yellow was the right call for the tone of the game, or maybe it could have been avoided by exerting boundaries a little more stringently early on.
The PK was early, then it simmered for a while before Altidore's charge really set it off, then it was hot the rest of the game.
MLS fined TFC for the mass confrontation after the incident between Alitdore and Abubakar https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...ee-fines-two-teams-five-players-after-week-28
http://proreferees.com/2019/09/20/w...-week-28/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral Interesting video and analysis of the DC/Portland goal line call, but in the end, "PRO feels that the one point of view camera offers sufficient evidence to award a goal."
PRO says the goal that wasn't in the DCU vs Portland game should have been a goal. Damn, beaten by @akindc by 1/60th of a second.
It's pretty fascinating that they only used the near goal line camera - one wonders why they never looked at the view from the far line camera, as that's the angle that PRO used to say it should have been awarded.
It is incredible to me that they’ve reached this conclusion and even more incredible that they’ve decided to say so publicly. Not that I’m against transparency in principle, but as we’ve discussed there have been many instances where PRO has been expected to speak and remained silent. I don’t understand what is being accomplished here because in the end, PRO is offering its opinion.
I have to disagree with PRO here. If we're inferring (read: guessing) what the image would have looked like in the 1/60th of a second between frames, we've moved completely outside of the "clear and obvious" standard. To say that this very likely a goal is fine, but to say that this is conclusive evidence of a clear and obvious error is absolutely insane.
I became aware earlier this week that the VAR only looked at one of the two angles and I was initially shocked, like you. An MLS official then said to me, paraphrasing, “you’ve got 20+ cameras to look at and the best one shows it in line with the goal, what would make you think in that moment that a different camera would show something different and what would it mean anyway?” I felt it was a valid point. PRO thinks differently. Either way, it’s a lesson for VARs and will lead to some longer checks. That’s the practical implication.
My only quibble with this point is that in this particular scenario, you only have 2 cameras that could possibly be relevant.