PRO lists this as Week 11. Not sure what happened to weeks 9 and 10.... 09/09/20 Inter Miami vs Atlanta United Inter Miami CF Stadium (8PM ET) REF: Robert Sibiga AR1: Adam Garner AR2: Brooke Mayo 4TH: Natalie Simon VAR: Sorin Stoica AVAR: Jozef Batko Minnesota United vs FC Dallas Allianz Field (8PM ET) REF: Alex Chilowicz AR1: Kathryn Nesbitt AR2: Eric Weisbrod 4TH: Lukasz Szpala VAR: Chris Penso Montreal Impact vs Toronto FC Saputo Stadium (8PM ET) REF: Dave Gantar AR1: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho AR2: Philippe Briere 4TH: Fabrizio Stasolla VAR: Drew Fischer AVAR: Chantal Boudreau Colorado Rapids vs Houston Dynamo Dick’s Sporting Goods Park (9PM ET) REF: Fotis Bazakos AR1: Brian Poeschel AR2: Jason White 4TH: Ramy Touchan VAR: Malik Badawi AVAR: Chris Elliott Real Salt Lake vs Los Angeles FC Rio Tinto Stadium (9:30PM ET) REF: Victor Rivas AR1: Jose Da Silva AR2: TJ Zablocki 4TH: Elton Garcia VAR: Guido Gonzales Jr AVAR: Fabio Tovar
AUFC vs Miami has it all. VAR PK called off for encroachment, VAR of PK gives retake for encroaching defender as well and a possible missed goalie off his line that should have caused another retake. Also LGP seems to haves aged to make refs forget his reputation by changing jerseys. Didn’t think he was ever going to manage to draw a card.
Certainly was an interesting first half. I see little to argue on the retake. Cubo clearly encroached and was first to the ball, and there was an opponent right there with him. Can't really call the opponent's presence trifling since he'd have had the opportunity to clear the ball if Cubo wasn't there or had misplayed it. Clear difference between this and the Toronto penalty where the Montreal players were well behind Piatti. Otherwise there seems to be two main points of contention: should LGP have been cautioned earlier and/or more often for stopping/interfering with promising attacks, and should Figal have been sent off for the penalty foul instead of seeing yellow for UB (reckless foul)? At least that's what's being argued on Twitter (and in the latter case by ATL's coach/players).
Certainly was an interesting first half. I see little to argue on the retake. Cubo clearly encroached and was first to the ball, and there was an opponent right there with him. Can't really call the opponent's presence trifling since he'd have had the opportunity to clear the ball if Cubo wasn't there or had misplayed it. Clear difference between this and the Toronto penalty where the Montreal players were well behind Piatti. Otherwise there seems to be two main points of contention: should LGP have been cautioned earlier and/or more often for stopping/interfering with promising attacks, and should Figal have been sent off for the penalty foul instead of seeing yellow for UB (reckless foul)? At least that's what's being argued on Twitter (and in the latter case by ATL's coach/players).
I am interested to hear PRO's take on this. But hey, at least a foul was called (looking at you, Michael Oliver). I also have only seen the highlights package, not the full match. Was VAR used to move that from DFK to PK or was PK the initial call?
I'd have to ask to be absolutely sure, but I believe the penalty was the initial call from the referee. There was no on-field review for it. Mayo was the AR on that side and could have helped with the position, but I think he had it himself.
Sort of hard to tell exactly where he's pointing, because he has to go deal with the confrontation, but I think you're right based on what's below. That said, I don't think Mayo could help given the offside line was deeper; Sibiga probably has the better angle, to be honest. And now that I look at it, her movement indicates either DFK or that she doesn't know Sibiga is making the PK call straight away. So it is all confusing, but perhaps understandably so. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-cf-vs-atlanta-united-fc/details/video/237244 I would note that time of offence at 39:48 to executed second penalty at 46:34 is a LONG time. That's almost 7 minutes, in effect, to take and execute a PK. There are obviously major contributing factors to that and getting it right is now of the utmost importance. But that's something you couldn't see before without VAR.
So this is odd. Last night in COL-HOU Younes Namli was crunched on the ankle with a tackle around the 42nd minute. No foul was called and advantage was apparently played. After the Rapids played the ball out and Namli got treatment it appeared the Houston player was given a yellow card and the VAR official held play up while they reviewed the tackle fora possible red. Namli got treatment on the field. Play then re-started and Namli did not have to go off. Yet when I look at the box score on MLSSoccer.com there's no evidence of Houston getting a yellow or of any foul being called or anything at that time. I'd almost chalk it up to Fleming and 'Celo just misunderstanding what was going on and no yellow having been shown, but Namli got treatment but wasn't required to go off the field, which is only allowed if a card had been shown IIRC. It does not appear in the MLSSoccer.com highlights either. Regardless, I was looking for it to ask the experts here their opinion of the call. Yellow seemed like the right call to me but I've seen some Rapids and Dynamo fans suggest that it could have been a red card.
You are correct that a yellow was given (after advantage was played for the foul). You can see the card in hand during the broadcast. And I did get a message earlier from one of the crew pointing it out, as well. 43rd minute to Adam Lundkvist.
09/10/20 Seattle Sounders vs San Jose Earthquakes CenturyLink Field (10PM ET) REF: Allen Chapman AR1: Jeremy Hanson AR2: Cory Richardson 4TH: Farhad Dadkho VAR: Jorge Gonzalez AVAR: Joshua Patlak
How was the PK awarded to San Jose in the 70th minute not reviewed and overturned by VAR???? The offensive player stepped on the defenders foot and fell over! Bad enough that the ref missed the call despite looking right at it, but even worse that VAR didn't review and overturn it. Maybe it was a pity call, since Seattle was up 7-0 at the time....
Stepped on the outstretched foot of the defender who was making a challenge and about 17 kilometers from the ball? It’s a trip. It’s an obvious trip, in fact. The defender has lunged for the ball, come nowhere close to it, and put himself in a place where the attacker would naturally make contact. This might at well be the FIFA diagram for the definition of “careless trip.” You don’t win a Get out of Jail Free card from a penalty simply because your foot occupies space first. In situations where a defender is challenging for the ball and completely misses while making contact with an advancing attacker, that’s a clear foul. I wanted to say we’ve truly lost the plot if we think VAR should be intervening here. But it’s not even that. This is a foul. This should always be a foul. And we should all always call this as a penalty. It’s the opposite of a clear mistake. It’s an entirely correct call. https://mls.app.link/OSbxNEwwG9
San Jose player literally launched himself like a rocket when he sees another defender in front of him to beat. Stepping on the foot doesn't even make him go down. Just look at how he falls. Classic dive bio-mechanics. He wasn't even going down until he looks up and sees he's never going to beat the next defender to the ball. Dive, caution, IFK coming out.
I guess we couldn’t disagree more! What happened to the mantra of defenders being responsible for the risks they take? The defender challenged for the ball, didn’t come close, and put his leg in a place where the attacker was moving. I’ll give you that a smart attacker might make sure there’s contact. But that’s a LONG way from dive/caution.
I'm in between you two on this. I see the dive mechanics (flailing and what not after a too heavy touch) but also agree that the defender's foot caused the attacker to trip. Honestly, I'd be fine with a no-call but PK is probably the right call. No need to provoke problems in a 7-0 game. But no way is it a clear/obvious error to give a PK. In a sense it reminds me of Nima's no call in the box last week--in that he saw it one way in real time, and re-watching it is just going to show him what he already saw. Chapman saw this tackle in real time as a PK, and him watching that video is not going to show him anything different. Its a judgement call, and PK is probably correct, but had he waved it off, I don't think it should have gotten a review either.
Well....all the announcers disagreed with you. They unanimously said it wasn't even a foul. Defenders put their bodies in places all the time where attackers COULD make contact. Think about all the times defenders obstruct attackers on set pieces, for example. But in this case it was the attacker who initiated the contact, not the defender. You can't call a foul on a defender when he wasn't the one initiating contact. The defender has just as much right to the "space" as the attacker does.
I say this sincerely and with no animosity, but I absolutely could not care less what an announcer thinks. They are just as--and perhaps in many situations more--likely to be wrong about officiating matters than anyone else. Yes, and quite often I will use the argument that a defender had to go somewhere to refute an argument that a careless foul was made. But this is different. He's making a challenge for the ball. It's a terrible challenge for the ball. It's a dumb challenge for the ball. It misses the ball entirely and leaves his leg in the path of the attacker who is rushing by him. That's much different than "my body has to be somewhere and he happened to run into me." The defender is making a tackle. He makes a poor tackle and the result is he trips his opponent. Notwithstanding the arguments @GoDawgsGo makes about the attacker looking for the contact, that's an obvious foul. The defender made an overt action to put his leg in the path of an attacker, rather than putting his body any place else. When you do that and fail to win the challenge, there are consequences. Let's not ignore the obvious fact that not making this challenge was an option for the defender. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Sorry, this is just wrong to me. The defender made the challenge on an attacker. The idea that the attacker "initiates" contact is just false. It seems like you (and others) are hung up on the idea that the attacker's "steps" on the defender's foot. If this exact same play happened and the attacker's leg clipped the defender's ankle or shin as he tried to go by him, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because it would be an obvious penalty. I have no idea why that changes because the attacker's foot happens to land on the defender's foot. The defender has committed the same action either way. He's carelessly tripped his opponent. He initiated an action to challenge for the ball, possessed by the attacker, and failed. If a defender makes a wild tackle at midfield, the attacker tries desperately to avoid it by jumping out of the way, and happens to "step" on the tackler's foot instead of being naturally tripped by the tackle, it doesn't suddenly become a dive. We don't argue the attacker "initiated" that contact. None of that changes just because we enter the penalty area. In fact, as I alluded to above, defender's likely need to be even more responsible and aware of the risks they are taking at that point.
This is said well with much fewer words than I could accomplish.I do see the flail and sure, I know the attacker has made a heavy touch. But the defender still caused everything here. It's a foul. We might part ways on being able to stomach a no-call, but match context could matter for that. In a vacuum, it's a foul. And it's definitely 100% not a clear error to call the penalty. Whether a non-call would be a clear error is a much more interesting question.
News + GIF: Adrian Heath talked to few people in #MLS, and #MNUFC decided to not appeal Romain Metanire's red card vs. FC Dallas on Wednesday, so #Loons All-Star right back is out Sunday vs. Sporting KC. Hassani Dotson, Marlon Hairston, Bakaye Dibassy could factor in starting XI. pic.twitter.com/Kei1igkbtC— Andy Greder (@andygreder) September 11, 2020 If you've ever wondered why there has never been a red card appeal declared "frivolous" by the IRP, it's because the league never lets it get that far. Heath accidentally pulling back the curtain a little bit with that comment.
It's good that Heath and MNUFC didn't appeal that red card. A two-footed launch like this needs to be a red. I don't care if he initially "came up short". This type of launch is the textbook definition of using excessive force.
Notice as well that he's so out of control that even though he initially had his second leg tucked in, he actually ends up making contact with the studs of both feet, or at least I'm pretty sure. Hard to see. But that's exactly my point. This would have been IMO a frivolous appeal. The teams run it by certain league officials first, though, and are either told to give it a shot, or they're told no chance in hell. Clearly, Minnesota were told to pound sand.
09/12/20 Chicago Fire vs Columbus Crew Soldier Field (3:30PM ET) REF: Jon Freemon AR1: Peter Manikowski AR2: Ian McKay 4TH: Fotis Bazakos VAR: Edvin Jurisevic AVAR: Peter Balciunas D.C. United vs New York Red Bulls Audi Field (7PM ET) REF: Marcos DeOliveira AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Brian Dunn 4TH: Luis Arroyo VAR: Chico Grajeda AVAR: Matthew Nelson New York City FC vs FC Cincinnati Red Bull Arena (7PM ET) REF: Rubiel Vazquez AR1: Kathryn Nesbitt AR2: Jose Da Silva 4TH: Thomas Snyder VAR: Alan Kelly AVAR: Tom Supple Orlando City vs Inter Miami Exploria Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Ismail Elfath AR1: Logan Brown AR2: Gjovalin Bori 4TH: Nima Saghafi VAR: Christina Unkel AVAR: Kyle Longville Philadelphia Union vs New England Revolution Subaru Park (7:30PM ET) REF: Guido Gonzales Jr AR1: Claudiu Badea AR2: Tyler Wyrostek 4TH: Robert Sibiga VAR: Jose Carlos Rivero AVAR: Craig Lowry