To me, that's the biggest gray area involving VAR. We all know penalties are judged by a different standard than other fouls, but I can't objectively look at that replay and say there's no foul committed. Because there is one.
I think the best and most likely standard here is... if you need to look at it three times to figure out if there even is a foul and, if so, who it was on... it's probably not a clear error. Even if it looks like a clear foul by third viewing. Which would be, you know, taking things back to the original intent of VAR. Anyway, more important things now...
I know there have been some wild playoff games this season, but this one was every bit as dramatic with the defending champs on the ropes and somehow finding a way to win. I have flashbacks to the 7-5 Toronto aggregate win in extra time over Montreal a few years ago in a bonkers second leg and extra time in terms of late game dramatics.
So how do you explain using VAR to check for the foul on Ruidiaz that led to a goal being disallowed, but not using VAR to check for a foul against Roldan and a match-changing PK? Especially given the force of the tackle against Roldan. I'm biased, being a Sounders fan, but don't see how you go to the monitor for the first, but not the second.
Except that it was pretty clear after one replay that the defender did not get the ball and that it was a foul and PK. Inexcusable not to go to the monitor, especially after going to the monitor to overrule your on-field call and disallow the Ruidiaz goal for a much more questionable foul.
Not sure why it’s my job to explain it. But if you’re going to make those comparisons, you need to throw the potential red card back into the mix. Because if that’s clearly a penalty then the tackle in question was pretty close to clearly a red card. But I’ll make three points. First, see my point above on why you don’t give the penalty via VAR. If it take a view viewings to discern if there was a foul and who committed it, it’s hard to say the error was clearly wrong even if the foul seems obvious once you finally see it. Second, if all the subjective mitigating circumstances for not giving a red card via VAR that I listed above apply in this match, then surely the subjective mitigating circumstance of this being a foul near the extreme boundary of the penalty area, with play going entirely away from goal, also is relevant. Finally, the foul leads directly to a goal. Without the foul there can be no goal. The foul is obvious. And if we do want to compare the three incidents directly to each other, those are the key points. One look and there’s no doubt (there is doubt with one look on the potential pen or RC). And this incident led to a goal so the error is akin to one of commission (allowing a wrong goal) instead of one of potential omission (not giving an odd penalty or not giving a borderline red). And we know that referees and fans and everyone else accept errors of omission more readily than those or commission.
I see you have an opinion here. I regret wasting my time on the post above. But now that you’ve made your points I guess Seattle should have been down to 10 men and down 1-0 because obviously it was “inexcusable” to not give that red card and Elfath needed to go to the monitor to ensure that mistake was rectified.
Also, sorry. It’s flat-out laughable to say a clear and deliberate charge in the back is a “much more questionable foul” than a potential PK where both players go to ground and challenge for a contested ball. I rarely, if ever, say this. But your self-admitted bias is showing. You won. Go enjoy it. Elfath and team had a really good game.
If the foul on Ruidiaz was "obvious", as you claim, then why didn't Elfath make the correct call on the field? Answer, because the foul was not obvious. Ruidiaz did make contact with the Minnesota defender, but the defender was also backing into Ruidiaz' space. To me it's a 50/50 call. And the last time I checked, where a foul takes place in the penalty area is irrelevant, as is the direction the player is running. A foul in the penalty area is a PK, period. Given that Elfath went to the monitor on the Ruidiaz call, he should have gone to the monitor on this call as well. And he should have gone to the monitor on the O'Neill foul as well. Either you use VAR to check all close/questionable calls or none of them. It's the inconsistency in how/when it's used that drives people crazy.
Except that it wasn't a "clear and deliberate charge in the back". That's why Elfath made no call on the field.
This was an excellent prediction for the first 89 minutes . Minor quibble on this one. It took three viewings on the broadcast, but that's only because the angles on the first two were wrong. That's the value of VAR having multiple cameras. That Roldan gets the ball and that the tackle is foul-worthy is obvious from the correct viewpoint; it doesn't take multiple viewings of that, or any sort of tricky measuring or anything. (I think your second point's mitigating circumstances - boundary + especially direction - are fair enough.)
I disagree with this reasoning. It might take many angles or combining angles to discern a challenge. That evidence is hard to find does not necessarily mean that the evidence isn’t clear when you find it. I think we are being harsh to mfw. I think all three incidents were of a similar vein: the push-off was the most blatant of the three, but there are mitigation factors: Boxall is backing in, and Ruidiaz’s arms don’t extend very much. Put another way, I think the Ruidiaz incident is in that region where it is barely enough for a review, while the other two incidents are in that region where they are almost enough for a review. I do think all 3 were on-field errors by Elfath, personally (I was more iffy in the O’Neil tackle until seeing the freeze frame of the point of contact, which is above the ankle). I’m not really criticizing Ford here. I totally get how these plays seem like an inconsistent line for clear and obvious. But, at the same time, what is Ford to do when there are three plays that are difficult to analyze and which all fall close to the line of a clear and obvious error? I think his decisions were fair.
The replay made it clear - Ruidiaz clearly ran through the back of the MNUFC player. As a neutral, I thought it was a foul at live speed and was surprised Elfath didn't call it. One replay (from the top of the stadium no less) was enough to see. We also don't know if Elfath was screened or if something else happened. I'd be interested to hear the communication between Elfath and Ford. If Elfath said something to the effect of "I didn't get a good look at it", then it's completely understandable that the Ruidiaz call would have been reversed. It was also notable that neither Ruidiaz nor Schmetzer really put up any significant argument (including Schmetzer live on FS1 when I was absolutely expecting him to say something like they got unlucky on that play when he was talking with Strong and Holden seconds after the call was reversed). As a neutral watching this game from a referee's perspective, I have no issues at all with the ultimate resolution of these plays from a "clear and obvious" perspective. Maybe I would think differently if my favorite team was playing.
But this is absolutely not the standard for VAR, if by "check" you mean an OFR. Every eligible call is checked by the VAR. But they only go to the R on the field if the VAR believes that there is a clear error. Never has soccer remotely suggested that all close calls should be reviewed on the field. And if it does, we might as well watch pointy ball or baseball, as the flow of the game will be completely gone.
You don't have a clue as to how referees think and act at this level. This is similar to an offside situation where the AR keeps the flag down, knowing that VAR can intervene to call an offside after the fact. If Elfath blows the whistle right away, he takes away a scoring chance that cannot be restored by VAR. By allowing the play to proceed, he preserves the scoring chance while knowing that VAR can bail him out if he really did miss a foul. From a management point of view as taught by PRO, he was correct.
I'm not saying I totally agree. If you read back, I was actually the first person to post on this during the VAR check and my statement was "this could be a penalty..." So I felt it could have gone either way once I saw all the angles and wouldn't have been totally shocked with an intervention (the obvious corollary here is that if Elfath calls it in real-time, it's never getting overturned). But it is a philosophical argument that's been at the heart of VAR since the very beginning. Is VAR meant to catch ALL missed defensive fouls in the penalty area that can be demonstrated to be conclusive with video? Or is it meant to catch and punish what "football expects" around penalty incidents--in other words, only punishing what are egregious misses that aren't just confirmed fouls, but feel like penalties. If the former was the operating philsophy, then every single vislble defensive hold caught on video would result in a penalty. Every single time a defender literally kicked his opponent--even when he won a portion of the ball with a challenge--we'd have a penalty. And that's not the regime that has been established. There's been a higher bar for VAR penalties above and beyond the factual 'yes/no' answer to the question of whether or not it was a foul (notwithstanding the complicating factor where handballs have theoretically been turned into black/white decisions). So when it takes a few different angles on an awkward challenge where both players go to ground on the extreme edge of the penalty area to contest a ball as it moves away from goal... yeah, no one should be surprised when the VAR has a higher bar for intervention versus a penalty incident that doesn't have those factors, even if you can isolate one angle that shows a clear foul. We're over four years into the VAR era now and, with a few hiccups here and there, that's defensible within the standard established for non-handball penalties. It's totally fine to have a differing opinion on any of the three incidents (though I would say protesting the disallowed goal decision does strain credulity, as it was pointed out that even Seattle barely protested given the circumstances--and the head coach had a chance to do it contemporaneously and live on nationaln television!). What's frustrating is being asked seemingly genuine questions and then being immediately told we're wrong. There's also a demonstrable misunderstanding of how VAR is supposed to operate. If the goal is to just complain about decisions against a team, there are other settings for that.
To be completely fair, isn't this type of "letting the play go" only supposed to happen with offside decisions? I get why a referee could let the play go and then be asked to do an OFR, but then he gets marked down for a missed call (but obviously not marked down as much as he would if the entire crew missed this call). To be very clear, the crew got this call right in the end and VAR (in my opinion) worked exactly as it should. But it would still go down as a negative against Elfath in any sort of post-match assessment, correct? I only ask this because I know we talk a lot on here about not just letting the "eye in the sky" referee the match. I know I'm talking in circles around this, but how would the assessment go if Elfath said after the match, "I really did think it was a foul, but I wasn't sure so I decided to let play continue while talking with Tim (Ford) that I think I missed one?" (Note - I get this is an awful paraphrase.) Overall, this crew got high marks from me for the night. They did a very good job. I'm just trying to understand more about what's going on given I will never be anywhere close to officiating matches at this level.
You are correct as to the theory of VAR. The reality is that in terms of game management and psychology, it may be an option to let the play finish and then have VAR intervene. This was clearly a foul that led to the scoring of a goal, so it falls within VAR parameters. Don't misunderstand me--if Elfath knows 100% in live action that it is a foul, he is giving it. It is the uncertainty that suggests, if a blow the whistle here and I am wrong, I have just taken away a goal scoring chance that cannot be restored by VAR.
So your argument is that the lack of a foul call can't be a clear and obvious error because if it was a clear foul, it would have been called by the referee in the first place? What is the point of video review within this line of reasoning you've developed? That the referee should never go to the monitor? That the referee should go to the monitor any time something remotely controversial happens? Video review exists because referees don't always see things correctly. Maybe their view was blocked or their attention split. Maybe they had a massive brain fart. That said, video review doesn't operate in the gray area, and understanding when a call is beyond the limit of what can be justified subjectively is the key to understanding the role of the VAR. A lot of us would call a penalty, but if there are considerations that support calling no foul, then the VAR must not act. Similarly, had the foul been called, as long as there are considerations that support giving it, the VAR lets it be. This is the gray area of which we speak. So when the VAR recommends a review to disallow that goal for the foul in the attacking possession phase, he's decided that there are no considerations that support the decision on the field. He's decided that any reasonable professional referee, given the opportunity to view the video footage, will determine that the attacker has committed a clear offense that must be sanctioned. It's outside of the gray area. You don't have to agree, and the only one where we *really* know that the VAR was correct at this point is the O'Neill tackle because PRO told the FS1 crew that they supported the yellow. But we also have spent the last 3 and a half (plus) years watching video review develop in MLS, and we (mostly) have a good idea of what PRO has and hasn't supported when it comes to VAR decisions in that time. All that said, have whatever opinion you want, but try to understand what you're really arguing about, too.
Right. I'd also add there there are instructions for referees to wait on potential attacking fouls that would cancel out OGSOs if a goal could be imminent. So to @RefIADad's technical question, it is not just offside where the concept of a formal delay applies relative to VAR. That said, if Elfath was engaging in that sort of more formal delay tactic/mechanic, he would allow the goal to be scored, then call the foul. In that scenario, it forces to VAR to intervene only if the foul was wrong, rather than the other way around. So the burden of proof shifts. The fact that Elfath awarded the goal initially tells me that he personally did not view it as a foul in real-time. Whether or not that's because he didn't see it well enough to make a call, saw it incorrectly, or his gut said foul but he simply felt from a management standpoint it was easiest to have the VAR's burden be on confirming the foul is anyone's guess. But, yes, technically (and I stress that word) that 3rd avenue would result in a score reduction on his assessment
The match assessor looks at every decision and decides whether the on field official has made the decision correctly or incorrectly. Incorrect KMIs lower the score. The match assessor then looks at every VAR intervention and non intervention and decides whether correct or incorrect. Incorrect inverentions or non interventions that should be lower their score. I’ll also add - I don’t think Ishmail cares about the assessment. MLS refs don’t need a certain score to stay in the league, it doesn’t affect his fifa badge, it really doesn’t even affect his domestic or international assignments. I’d hazard to say that Jair does not have a great assessment score this year with the number of times he’s been to the monitor yet he’s a lock for the final because of who he is and job he does. The assessment tool is a necessary administrative tool for PRO but all that really matters is that the bosses are happy
Good explanations here and to others for my question - thanks. To be very clear, I'm happy that the obviously right call was eventually made (my use of the adverb is very much intentional in this case to differentiate it from the other two plays where there was not a clear and obvious error as we've discussed). When everything is said and done, that's the ultimate goal. It also makes sense about assessment scores likely not making a difference at that level. For a conference final on national television, the end result of the goal being waved off because of an obvious foul is what really matters. The neutral viewing public really won't care how the crew got to the right call, just that they got to the right call.
Agree with entire point of the post but a couple quibbles in the interest of clarity... My understanding has been--at least in the scoring era immediately prior to this one--was that the officials in each position who had an overall score in a certain percentile (bottom 20%?) were the only ones PRO could terminate (notwithstanding behavior/ethical issues and the like). So if PRO wanted to fire someone who had a median assessment score, they couldn't. But if an official fell in near the bottom of the rankings and PRO wanted to fire them, then they could. So it's not like a low assessment score would cause termination, but it could allow for it while higher scores could not. Is that not true? Obviously none of this would apply to Elfath since you aren't firing your Referee of the Year. And strictly speaking you don't need a "certain score" to stay in the league. But I did think being in the top 80% of scorers was a goal for anyone who might feel like their job security was tenuous. There was a discussion a few years ago about how playoff matches were not assessed. That's changed, right?