2022 MLS Week 26 Referee Discussion

i don’t know that I agree that a TI that hits the ground before entering play should be considered trifling, any more than a ball leaving the field should be. And, of course, as we all know, merely a smidgen of the ball would have to be over a smidgen of the line for the ball to be properly in play.

But that issue would not be something the VAR could review, as that is a violation of the restart, rather than something that happens after the ball is in play.

 

I haven't watched all of Instant Replay yet, @MassachusettsRef, but I feel like Jack Elliott got really lucky this week to avoid getting penalties called against him for two handballs in the box. For the DC one, play was stopped quite a while and I was surprised Unkel never went to the monitor after finally seeing the replay (it was never shown in stadium).

 

I understand what you're saying about PRO communicating things.

The other interesting aspect about the DC game was that Unkel had to rely on VAR to award the Union a penalty at the end of the first half for an unwise challenge by DC's Alfaro. Uhre made a meal of the contact (it was quite the dramatic fall), so perhaps that made Unkel not decide to call the foul live, but it was obvious when seeing the replay that it was a penalty.

Video of that incident is here - I didn't quite realize just how close to that play Unkel was originally until watching the video again.

 

I think that's one that certainly is a foul but if the player doesn't go down and tries to stay up, which I think he certainly could have and maintained possession, then there is no call.

An aside, your link to the MLS site says the PK occurred in the 48th minute when it was actually in the first half so 45+3.

 

In a chat w/Wayne Rooney today, he mentioned something interesting to me:

Howard Webb, GM of PRO, reached out to DC United in regards to the non-called handball in the box against Philly last weekend, saying it was a clear PK. They got it wrong on the field and in VAR.

— Pablo Iglesias Maurer (@MLSist) August 26, 2022

 

Man I feel for Bakrey on that NYCFC/Charlotte goal There is no way he would have missed that, and now he has to stand there and straight-face say the AR was "unsighted." I bet he died a bit inside.

 

I also think Nima/Penso needed waaay better communication on the broken screen incident. Unless there werecoms edited out for that video, what happened there communication wise is unacceptable. Nima should have been much more dogmatic--"Chris, it was a dive, he was dragging his foot long before any contact, you need to void the PK and caution for simulation." And then Chris could push back on the caution and say he can't do that without seeing it himself or something, but honestly if the 4th official can communicate misconduct, maybe Penso should have taken it. Instead, Nima didn't come across as compelling and Penso just bounced. Granted, I'm sure they hadn't planned for this or trained for this, but still. If there was more communication than what was released, I retract this comment, but based on what was released, that's just not ok.

 

But I don’t think that is what they are taught. I believe they are taught that the R has to see it to be able to make a change. Perhaps one of our VAR experts can answer.

 

I’m not so sure of that, but I’d love to see an angle closer to the ARs view. It happens fast, and there was a player who well could have been blocking exactly where the AR needed to see in that fraction of a second to see the ball so briefly over the line. And the AR has to be positive to call that goal.

 

Look, Barkey said "In 2000 games, this is the first time this has happened." So at that point, I think we can sort of pause protocol and let communication take over. As in, "look, this isn't a close one. This is a dive. There is not contact."
I wonder if Nima was perhaps second guessing himself (that's what it sounded like to me). And if Penso picks up on that, obv. he's sticking with it. But if the VAR says, "screen or no screen, put this in the category of an objective decision."

 

I absolutely agree that would be a good way to handle it. And as I read the magic book, I don’t think it would be prohibited by the LOTG (even without a fiction of an objective decision, which this was not). But it goes to what the training is, and I thought the MLS training was that the R can only change based on what he sees on the screen, which makes it tough to blame them for following that.

 

You keep saying nima but he was the 4th and not the var. There is a protocol in place for these instances but as you can imagine, once in 2000 games means there is a chance it won’t strictly be followed

 

My bad. I knew he was on the game, and thought I recognized the voice. I just now looked at the assignments. Ford. 1,000 apologies Nima!

 

My opinion only in this, and I write this obviously ignorant of the actual VAR training and communication.

If I were in this situation, and my VAR was saying “Absolute, 100% dive-reverse your call and issue a simulation caution”, I’d go with that recommendation absent any other guidance and training. I’d equate this to a player committing violent conduct behind my back. I’ll talk with the AR, and I’ll make sure my AR is sure about the recommendation. But if it’s a clear and confident recommendation, I’m trusting my AR here.

Again, the VAR training may be totally against doing this. But if it isn’t, I’d like to think common sense and teamwork would get to the clear and obvious right decision.