Simon’s assigned fourth was postponed due to the protests. It’s also important to note that this week marks Stott’s first on-field appearance this year- assume that means he passed the fitness test.
Why has Chris Penso been absent from the center field? Injury? He's only centered 2 MLS games in 1 year.
Gotta say that the second disallowed Portland goal late on did look onside, BUT we only got one angle which may have been deceiving. Long check but no review. But also let's all laugh at Peter Vermes who is apparently convinced Dallas should have been called offside prior to their goal because they "gained an advantage" by being slow to get back. 9th minute. It's good for a laugh. The only Dallas player who is even *remotely* close to an offense is Ferreira, but it would have to be for making an obvious action that clearly affects the defender's ability to play the ball, and just no way. Ferreira is well behind and doesn't take off towards the ball until the defender makes a deliberate play back to his goalkeeper, at which point they try to pass it out of the back, and get caught in possession. Oopsie woopsie. Good goal. Learn the Laws, Peter.
I think the signal here was fine. Especially with an IFK, it's pretty clear it's not a goal. I don't think an additional signal that it isn't a goal is necessary--indeed, there is no recognized signal for that. (And in the US, as well as most of the soccer world, where goals aren't whistled, the whistle attracts attention and the FK signal tells the restart--you can tell from the attackers' reactions that the call was understood.) And he should have. The AR shouldn't be looking at encroachment at the top of the PA, so the only way this call should get made is by the R or by a VAR recommendation (which we know did not happen here).
The public explanation does, yes, but the instruction as I understand it is that this was considered fully correct, and even if it had been allowed and forced to go to review, the VAR is not intended to micro-analyse the positioning of the other players. We don't call trifling offenses live, and we shouldn't be calling them on video, either. PRO wants this outcome no matter what. I speculated differently above based on my understanding, but the instruction is different. Fine by me. This is the spirit of the Law. Would expect a different outcome if the Montreal player(s) had made more significant headway into the penalty area.
For MLS, yes. I think your initial assessment would be correct at a FIFA event right now. But it wouldn’t get tested for awhile now. UEFA? Not so sure.
Interesting examination of the Portland "offside" call. Not sure I buy that he found the placement of Jebo's feet, but good reminder angles are deceiving. Also, note how out of position the AR is that likely made it look like Jebo was more offside than he actually was. So that @TimbersFC would-be-equalizer? I have it as onside, by about 1 inch, but maybe not by the player you thought it would be. The line here is @kingjebo's line, and you can see he's offside to the player directly in front of him, but kept on by Steres's foot, just barely. pic.twitter.com/GKNPbZqZv0— SoccerPhotogrammetry AKA "A Nice Gentleman" (@OffsideModeling) September 3, 2020
The instruction of ignoring minimal encroachment by the defender is a PRO-specific instruction or an official interpretation by IFAB or FIFA? Does it apply for matches using VAR? If it is a PRO official instruction, was it communicated to the referees before this incident or only used now to explain the decision?
for me the interesting thing is PRO says that if the original kicker had scored there should have been a re-take due to the encroachment. That seems to contradict what's been said here about ignoring encroachment if the encroacher doesn't get involved.
They conveniently left out the "if called" part of that hypothetical. It's unlikely to be called when the shot goes in straight away, but there's always going to be a point where a referee says "no, this is too much and I can't consider it trifling." Subjectivity reigns. The VAR protocol is the only place you'll actually find that restriction concerning becoming involved in the play.
Not to revive a dead horse and I know this is technically from a later week but how does PROs explanation of this even mesh with the retake ordered in the MIA and ATL game. Isn’t this virtually the same scenario but this week we have a retake and last week was an IFK? The defensive encroachment is virtually the same in both plays so I’m hoping to don’t fall back on that because it would be a pretty lame defense. I’m curious to see what verbal gymnastics they’ll use here.
Maybe I'm just feeling cynical amidst the pandemic and being choked by smoke, but it seems to me that PRO has backed off on transparency and are now more selective about the criticisms they make, conveniently avoiding certain issues. IMO, if a scenario is too sensitive to fully address, they'd be better off not addressing it than half addressing it, as that half addressing is going to lead to misconceptions.
I haven't been defending PRO much recently, but I'll do it here. The problem is it's not virtually the same. From an impact standpoint, the two instances of defensive encroachment are much different. In the Toronto scenario, the defensive encroachment is far less severe than the offensive encroachment and it comes nowhere near the point of the "missed" PK (the pass). The encroaching goal-scorer is never challenged or even in danger of being challenged. It's clear he is able to score because of his encroachment. In the Atlanta situation, the encroaching defender is right with the goal-scorer--just a step or so away when the goal gets scored. He is committing the exact same action with nearly the exact same timing and distance encroached. If he's goal-side to the attacker, he wins that ball and clears it. Aside from the practical impact above (which they probably can't say because it's not technically what the Laws say), the answer is going to be found in the application of VAR and its protocols. The key difference is the call on the field. In the Toronto case, Fischer makes the call on the field to annul the goal. So VAR is only intervening if the call is clearly wrong. And since there isn't a mandate to treat "non-impactful" defensive encroachment as needing review, the VAR is done and the call stands. With Atlanta, Sibiga doesn't make a call on the field. So VAR needs to check the goal and since the goal-scorer has encroached, must recommend a review. At that point, SIbiga goes to the monitor and obviously has to annul the goal, but has to look at the whole play to determine the restart. He's looking right at a defender and attacker encroaching at nearly the same time and the same place, so he's now obligated to order the retake. The only interesting question here is whether or not the VAR would have recommended a review for the defensive encroachment IF Sibiga had called off the goal based solely on the attacking encroachment and given the IFK coming out like Fischer did. Then the two situations would be analogous. I am not sure what the answer is on that and it probably depends on the VAR because there's a level of subjectivity here about impact.
I guess I find the detail of the defender being “close” to the encroaching attacker largely irrelevant if we’re trying to determine impact on the play. Both scorers made 1 touch shots into the goal. Whether the defender to 2 feet or 2 yards from the encroaching attacker has no impact. They still didn’t stop or even change the shot. So their impact is non existent. To me that doesn’t seem like a worthwhile distinction.
I think you'd find disagreement among a lot of top-level referees and the decision-makers at that level. But, ultimately, yes that's a subjective standard. But to the question of what PRO will fall back on (if they say anything publicly), it is the question of the call on the field. If Fischer had not called his or Sibiga had called his, you have more of an apples to apples comparison. Because two different calls on the field occurred and the VAR protocols are specific about when a VAR gets involved, you have more of an apples to oranges comparison. Fischer never went to the monitor and he wasn't supposed to, because the VAR does not have a mandate to recommend review of "non-impactful" (yes, I'm making that phrase up) defensive encroachment. Sibiga had to go to the monitor and, once there, has an obligation to sanction what he sees correctly per the Laws. If Fischer had to go to the monitor or if Sibiga made a decision to have an IFK coming out on the field, you'd have a very interesting direct comparison. But that's not what happened.
Let's not forget that Sibiga missed the call. That's the origin of the problem here. Unless, and help me out here if this is the case, the Rs are less likely to look for encroachment knowing the VAR will let them know if its something bad?
Based on pre-VAR history, in which encroachment was virtually never called, how would they be looking less than that?
Well, don't forget there was a two year period before VAR (15-16) where the R was expected to get those encroachments. I grant that for most of MLS history those weren't called, but also for the two years leading up to VAR, Rs were very much expected to call those. Not all did. (Geiger being one exception, and maybe Stott the other, but my understanding is that in those two seasons they were most certainly expected to be called). VAR comes along, and now that call goes away. But Sibiga should have had it. If a guy encroaches that much, and then interferes with play, it absolutely should be called without VAR.
You can't force referees to make calls they think are inherently detrimental to the game. You make these calls over and over, you're ruining the game, and everyone is mad at you.