05/01/21 New York Red Bulls vs Chicago Fire Red Bull Arena (1PM ET) REF: Ted Unkel AR1: Peter Balciunas AR2: Ryan Graves 4TH: Nima Saghafi VAR: Chico Grajeda AVAR: Brian Dunn Real Salt Lake vs Sporting Kansas City Rio Tinto Stadium (2PM ET) REF: Dave Gantar AR1: Mike Rottersman AR2: Kevin Lock 4TH: Alex Chilowicz VAR: Allen Chapman AVAR: Craig Lowry CF Montreal vs Columbus Crew DRV PNK Stadium (3PM ET) REF: Tim Ford AR1: Corey Rockwell AR2: Kevin Klinger 4TH: Silviu Petrescu VAR: Jose Carlos Rivero AVAR: Jozef Batko Houston Dynamo vs Los Angeles FC BBVA Stadium (3:30PM ET) REF: Robert Sibiga AR1: Ian Anderson AR2: Jeremy Kieso 4TH: Joe Dickerson VAR: Daniel Radford AVAR: Jonathan Johnson New England Revolution vs Atlanta United Gillette Stadium (7PM ET) REF: Chris Penso AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Jason White 4TH: Thomas Snyder VAR: Sorin Stoica AVAR: Tom Supple
05/01/21 Philadelphia Union vs New York City FC Subaru Park (7:30PM ET) REF: Ismail Elfath AR1: Kathryn Nesbitt AR2: Jose Da Silva 4TH: Matt Franz VAR: Guido Gonzales Jr AVAR: Adam Wienckowski Orlando City vs FC Cincinnati Exploria Stadium (7:30PM ET) REF: Drew Fischer AR1: Logan Brown AR2: Brian Poeschel 4TH: Marcos DeOliveira VAR: Jorge Gonzalez AVAR: Kyle Longville Minnesota United vs Austin FC Allianz Field (8PM ET) REF: Ramy Touchan AR1: Claudiu Badea AR2: Jeffrey Swartzel 4TH: Fotis Bazakos VAR: Edvin Jurisevic AVAR: Eric Boria FC Dallas vs Portland Timbers Toyota Stadium (8PM ET) REF: Alan Kelly AR1: Diego Blas AR2: Andrew Bigelow 4TH: JC Griggs VAR: Armando Villarreal AVAR: Jennifer Garner San Jose Earthquakes vs D.C. United PayPal Park (11PM ET) REF: Kevin Stott AR1: Cameron Blanchard AR2: Chris Elliott 4TH: Lukasz Szpala VAR: Victor Rivas AVAR: Fabio Tovar 05/02/21 Nashville vs Inter Miami Nissan Stadium (1PM ET) REF: Rosendo Mendoza AR1: Kyle Atkins AR2: Eric Weisbrod 4TH: Joshua Encarnacion VAR: Younes Marrakchi AVAR: Ian McKay
Fascinating stuff from Phil Neville on the non-DOGSO call in Nashville. https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/inte...hil-neville-referee-got-that-decision-spot-on I wonder how PRO will handle this in the Week in Review. Very difficult to now say the outcome was wrong, even if they believe it was. But also difficult to say the VAR was wrong if he, well, wasn’t.
Which one was that? I think it’s been awhile since a play that was actually reviewed didn’t get attention, aside from the very straightforward offside decisions. How do you do a Week in Review on VAR and not include the decision that has the most attention? I guess we will see if it is possible.
Didn’t the second (third?) case in the week 2 edition have an ambiguous statement like “the R decided” without opining on whether that was the right decision? That’s what I meant, not skipping it.
Nani tonight showed why he is so difficult to handle. It was one of the best individual performances on the field in a long time--he absolutely owned Cincinnati with an incredible goal, and unstoppable dribbling, amazing passes. It really was beautiful soccer. But then he also had an absurd tackle...the kind last year that got him sent off (and then reversed). Fisher just went with yellow tonight, which seemed accepted by the players. But man, how do you manage a player like that. Fisher just stayed out of his way, which is probably the safest approach.
Edit on my Nani post--I was wrong. It wasn't Nani who got the card. I was sure it was but check the box score and the tackle wasn't him after all. So only beautiful soccer from him. My bad.
Definitely happened in Week 1 (I think I commented on it), next-to-last review, I believe - we got a "Referee decided" (against what the VAR recommended) that seemed pretty one-sided towards the VAR recommendation during the commentary but no definitive statement at the end.
Mendoza had the decision correct initially. You can see him reaching to his back pocket. My guess is the AR talked him out of the decision. It's a red card. PRO talks alot about making the expected decision in the eyes of the players to easier manage the game. I.e call the obvious foul in midfield or give the obvious yellow card for SPA, etc. The expected decision is a red card. No one would have complained about a red card. Don't overthink it. Yeah, maybe the other defender will cover, but why reward such cynical play?
I'd actually love to see added to guidance that on close plays, where the foul is cynical, the default should be to DOGSO. And I wouldn't mind something about the converse either--where it is a close call on DOGSO and an "honest" foul, the default should be SPA.
The public pronouncements in the public VAR Week in Review are usually a little muddier than what is said behind the scenes. But if you know how the protocols work, language like "PRO would have preferred" or what have you is pretty easy to decipher. For me, that sort of wiggle room is understandable. In this situation, though, if they say the outcome is correct, they are saying it's a bad review. There's no scenario where you can say "hey, it was good that the VAR flagged this to review even though the yellow card is the correct answer." And, conversely, if PRO says the outcome was wrong when the coach who would have benefited went out of his way to say he thought the decision was excellent... well, that will make PRO look foolish. Maybe they come up with something where they say it's understandable why the VAR called for the review (wink, wink: sure, this was really close but "really close" isn't "clearly wrong") but that there wasn't enough to overturn the on-field decision and then they add the caveat that the same would have applied if red card was given. That probably placates all parties and is about as close to the truth as you can get here. Unless, of course, PRO really wants red here! I tend to agree with most of what @RedStar91 says. AR definitely talks Mendoza out of red initially. And I think red is the expected call. I also definitely fall in the camp of "if it's clearly cynical, I'm leaning more red." That said, there are questions of when the foul actually starts and also an angle that shows the attacker is grabbing some jersey, too. I think either red or yellow can be defended so I'd actually be fine if PRO says that and that it was a "bad review" for that narrow purpose. I do wonder what they--and Mendoza--think about the AR intervening to affirmatively say yellow over red, though. That part might be more interesting (and relevant for most of us) than VAR part of it.
In my opinion, this is a correct review and an incorrect outcome. After the DOGSO issues in week 1, I doubt PRO is going to want to take a wishy-washy stance on this one, if they feel it should have been a red card. They should be very clear about what they do and don’t consider DOGSO, because, frankly, the interpretation has been far from consistent in the first few weeks of this season.
Vancouver head coach Mark Dos Santos is calling out Allan Chapman https://theprovince.com/sports/socc...oach-dos-santos-sounds-off-on-mls-ref-chapman Of course he doesn't seem to understand how VAR works, as the foul on Namli that set up Rubio's free kick goal, one of the things he's complaining about, was just a foul, outside the box, with no card. Thus it would not be eligible for review under VAR./
lmao JJ managed to spell Allen every which way but correctly in that article. Just magnificent work. Anyway, there's a part there that goes beyond simple criticism and into questioning the integrity of the official so you have to expect there will be consequences.
That usually means they wanted it given and considered the review outcome to be incorrect. That rear angle from the end of the segment shows just how much space Romney still had to cover when the foul occurred.
Yeah for sure. We can talk ourself out of dogso because we judge the position of the defender a little too late and underestimate how much the offending defender unfairly slowed down the attacker.
Suffice it to say that behind the scenes language was a little more direct. I wonder if a reporter will ask Neville the natural follow-up question.
The audio is really interesting because Younes (the VAR) correctly tells the referee that the nature of the foul—holding—makes it seem that the covering defender was actually closer than he was. Alas the referee stuck with the on-field decision. What’s also interesting is that, as the clip in the article linked above shows, the referee instinctually reached for his back pocket before changing his mind and giving the yellow (probably with input from the lead AR). The lead AR, of course, doesn’t have the angle from behind that shows just how far apart the two defenders were. The referee did have that angle, which his perhaps why his initial instinct was red.
I feel like that is classic English gamesmanship. Praise the ref for a bad call that goes against your team (especially early in the season). Let the league tell the ref he was wrong, meanwhile if you see that same ref again that is certainly in the back of his mind. That ref might be less likely to send one of your players now in the future on a close call. Normally I wouldn't give a coach that much credit, but Neville is not exactly a rookie. This may be his first pro coaching gig, but he has been working the politics of English football for a long time.