The ball going out of bounds is not a restart. It’s a boundary line decision in the APP so reviewable
Having now seen this play, I don't think it's as clear-cut as the two of you have determined. There are three potential issues at play. The first is that, in somewhat recent history (certainly under the PRO regime) there was an edict/instruction that any attacking free kick from within ~35 yards that wasn't taken immediately should become ceremonial. This would qualify here. I am not sure if that has been laxed some, but it's something to consider. Related to that point, you see Freemon move deliberately toward the spot, with the whistle in his mouth while he is gesticulating (some combination of telling the defender to drop the ball and indicating the spot). This is relevant because of the first point but also because it is showing Freemon's active involvement. Once a referee becomes actively engaged with players, you're reaching a point where it's much closer to needing to be ceremonial (irrespective as to whether or not the instruction above is still active). And the third potential wrinkle is that Freemon looks like he goes to his pocket for a dissent card. It doesn't appear like he actually says anything, as his whistle is in his mouth, but the 3-4 LAFC players there would be seeing him go to the pocket, which would--I'm sorry--give them the impression that he's going to card and not allow a restart while their backs are turned. Now, all that said... the LOTG themselves, stripped of all extra high-level instruction we get, want this to be a good goal. And justice/spirit of the game makes us want this to be a good goal. LAFC fouled. LAFC held the ball. LAFC dissented. So Dallas took the first opportunity it could to restart, caught LAFC napping, and scored a goal. We should want this to be a goal and we are absolutely right that at the most fundamental level, it's LAFC's fault. But from a strictly referee perspective, at minimum Freemon did a few things here that I'm sure he wishes he didn't do because he became part of the situation and, at worse, he might have allowed the goal when technically he shouldn't have.
But hey. at least he didn't allow the kick to be taken 20 yards away from the spot he was looking at, so progress!
that’s fair; I look at these things almost entirely from the “spirit of the game” perspective. Like it or not, there are other considerations at the professional level that may take priority. There’s enough money involved it that it probably has to be this way.
Looks like PRO did not support the Zimmerman Review, and it sounds like they’re also saying the preferred decision anyways is no handball.
Yes I was very surprised to learn of this determination. Given the type of VAR handball decisions that have been supported, I thought this would also be supported. Seemed like some in PRO bent over backwards to find “clear” reasons this wasn’t clear. Anyway, one would hope determinations like this would lead to some introspection. Maybe we are over analyzing situations far too much when they are, well, borderline. One can make the argument it was wrong to review this but one could equally make the argument that it serves no purpose to parse decisions like this and declare them publicly wrong (particular because, if this WAS given live, there’s not enough to overturn). This was essentially a coin flip call and now PRO is out there saying its officials took away points and wrongly gave a red card. All because we pretend every handball somehow has a conclusive answer.
How much do you think this will affect penalties given for handball (by VAR or in real time) over the rest of the season?
Impossible to quantify. But I think interventions for unnatural position when a defender is not aerial just became less likely. Interventions for deliberate and aerial balls probably not affected, because the line has been pretty steady on those.
I think this is a good thing—this is recognizing that HB calls are subjective and there isn’t always a clearly right answer for which VAR makes sense to review. This also seems to have more recognition of the concept of being natural for what he is doing than we often see.
Except this is like the first time they went this route. And, as was pointed out, they essentially were saying “actually this isn’t a handball” more than “this is debatable.” You have Chris Penso and VAR both believe this was a clear penalty. My understanding is that most PRO officials had this as a clear penalty prior to PRO making its pronouncement. That doesn’t come out of nowhere. I think there’s a strong feeling within the officiating corps that PRO moved the goalposts here.
Does PRO not like this review if it was only the first PK in like the 15th minute and it doesn't lead to a 2CT. I have to belive that is why they didn't want the review. 2 PKs for handling via VAR and a 2CT to boot? Feels like PRO felt it was too much. In reality, that is getting sent down in Spain, Italy, and Germany. He'll, PSG got eliminated in the CL several years ago on a similar decision with Skomina via VAR. You can't just change the rules of the game on the officials because you're getting too many reviews via VAR.
Their language fluctuates a bit (drafting by committee?) between “subjective” and the reasons to think not a HB. I don’t think this should be a HB for pretty much the reasons PRO sets out. But I also agree it is true that most think this is an expected HB. (I don’t think it has anything to do with it being a 2d review. But I do think it could be an evaluation of the natural for what he is doing concept and the thought that the pendulum had swung too far in making innocuous conduct punishable.) I would hope this would be the going forward consistent interp, and that it would include recognition of the grey zone where there may be a preferred call, but that neither a call or a non call would be considered a C&O error.
This is where I’m at with this as well, especially that last bit. The defender is behaving in a completely natural way here. Therefore he just shouldn’t be penalized for handball; that was the whole purpose of the recent law change. With regards to the “shifting goalposts” MassachusettsRef has referenced, my perception is that it’s been more like: the goalposts have been gradually sliding out of position for the past several months, and PRO is putting them back into place now. I feel like the expectation for handballs has been stricter in August than it was in, say, April. I see this play as PRO taking this opportunity to re-emphasize to their officials that defenders should not be penalized for having their arms in positions that are natural for their movement, which has (perhaps as a fault of PRO themselves) been a little forgotten over the past few months.
I've been surprised at some of the handball decisions sent down over the summer that pro has supported. Maybe they're trying to shift back the line before the playoffs start.