Before VAR was in place, the old week on review (I don’t recall if that was the actual name) did exactly that. It explained both good decisions and mistakes by Rs and ARs, often with a lot of detail on how to analyze. Frankly, I think the current version that only deals with VAR issues is far inferior as a tool for us plebeian ref geeks.
I watched the replay. That tackle at live speed was an easy yellow. On the live speed replay from ground angle, I thought red was at least justifiable.
Having now seen more here, I think Dickerson is vindicated. One of those optical illusion type things without access to the high end zone camera. It was a foul and I think it satisfies DOGSO.
Would have been nice to include a link, for everyone else here ya go: https://www.mlssoccer.com/video/atl...should-columbus-have-been-down-to-9-players-o The backside angle cannot be claimed to be conclusive. We need a frontside angle.
I'm sorry I inconvenienced you. I was on my phone, so cut and paste wasn't as simple. Don't quite understand the obligation to repost a source that I'm pretty sure everyone who posts here is familiar with, though. No we don't. Unless the new standard is to ensure we have all 20+ angles before determining the veracity of all fouls. The high end zone camera shows that to clearly be a foul pretty much irrespective of any touch on the ball by the attacker. What would you see from the camera angle at 180 degrees that would excuse what you see from behind? More importantly, how can we judge Dickerson's decision based on a camera angle that would literally show the exact opposite of what he was viewing? I can understand debating the DOGSO elements here. But after watching that, I would hope not many people are questioning the foul itself. Also, it's important to read between the lines a little. That's an angle that wasn't shown at all in the broadcast. We should infer that means that PRO gave Instant Replay the angle and, consequently, this was the angle used by the VAR to get to "check complete." The Instant Replay folks consult with PRO (though don't always agree, obviously). When PRO wants certain information out there ahead of time, they give it to them. That's undoubtedly what happened here.
Yeah, that angle makes a big difference -yellow card foul 100% in my book. While the other highlights view made it look like all of the touch on the ball was Mulraney, the high goal line look like Leal touched the ball first. I went back and looked frame by frame at the zoomed in over Mulraney's shoulder angle and still cannot see even a bit of Leal's teal cleat, BUT I am now noticing that you CAN see the ball change rotation angle slightly before Mulraney touches it and changes the rotation a second time. but still no dogso
Could have. You'd have to determine that it is a clear and obvious error to label that foul DOGSO. I don't think that's true, despite the commentary on IR. A yellow card might be slightly preferred. And if a yellow card had been given, there's no way a VAR would say the lack of a red was an error. But once the red is given, the bar for overturning it is quite high. And I don't see it here.
Yeah wow huge difference between those video angles. Not sure I've ever seen a better example of why the best angle is perpendicular to the direction of contact, the one where you can see the space between two players.
In a shocking turn of events, the Independent Review Panel has voted to uphold an appeal from Atlanta and rescind the punishment. Because they said no foul? Because no DOGSO? Your guess is as good as mine. Although my guess would be they disagreed with the card and not the foul.
After seeing the angle from straight behind that was in the MLS Instant Replay, I felt like Instant Replay got it right. Mulraney's angle wasn't great it was a hard tackle and Leal clearly played the ball first (seemed that Mulraney got it with his toe after and Leal then clattered into both of Mulraney's legs and hit the deck.) I'm good with yellow there for a violent tackle, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree based on the angle shown in Instant Replay that this was a foul but should not have been a red for dogso. I would avoid describing a tackle worthy of a yellow card as "violent" though, as one of the red card offences in the laws is "violent conduct". We use the term "reckless" for a tackle worthy of a yellow, and "serious foul play" for one that deserves a red. We're a picky bunch for the semantics of the laws .
Thanks and absolutely - the one that kills me is just how many acronyms get used to make things quicker to talk about - ie. "SFP". From my long, long ago reffing, that was borderline "reckless" as it was behind(ish) and hard even though it was one-footed, got ball and studs were down. I've seen similar not called, called, and given a YC. Hard to disassociate my feelings about it as a fan from how I'd have wanted it called. The game seemed fairly even and not nasty - a straight red there put a lot of referee's finger on the scale.
Because sometimes it becomes necessary for us to "recalibrate" so to speak... I've learned that in PRO's opinion there was no foul committed by Jake Mulraney and that the incident was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
the week's review Stott really seems to have an attitude. Was the VAR afraid to send him any of that subsequent misconduct in this game after that first minute review?
I preface everything I write by saying this is not an attack on you, because you're only operating with the information you have. But the statement in your first sentence couldn't be more wrong. And the answer to your second question couldn't be more clearly "no." Taking the second one, no Chico Grajeda is not afraid to send down an OFR after he gets rejected early on. Just simply, "no." But more importantly, Kevin Stott probably has the furthest thing from an "attitude" of any referee in the league. And given how long he has been in the league, that's even more remarkable. There are people on this board that have worked with him. Every single one would back that statement up. He's also probably the best referee in the league at orchestrating VAR intervention. He knows the replay operators--non-officials/referees--by name at each venue, and sometimes talks to them directly to get the camera angle he wants. In this instance, he's just being ruthlessly efficient. Remember a review was happening minutes after a 1' goal, after an injury on the field. Play had been delayed a lot and he wanted to get things moving. And he did it well. He was also correct. You're also only hearing a snippet of the conversation--the most intense point where he's arriving at his decision. If you heard the run-up to that audio and just a little after, you'd never even think to suggest Stott has an "attitude." Again, not meant as an attack. If anything, this is another small example of why partial transparency can hurt or misinform. But I can tell you unambiguosly that your conclusion and suggestion are both wrong here.