On this offside review... now that it is a week later, I'm hearing that the bench personnel watched their own video replay on a tablet on the sideline. Not the broadcast, but house video they use for tactical instruction during the game. That showed the player on the goal line, and that is what was communicated to 4th. If that is true, and I don't know if it is, but I think that is what people are assuming...it raises this question: Can the 4th relay video information he sees? This is not a new question. In the pre-VAR era there was the question about the 4th seeing replay on the monitor with the redhat, or on the sideline camera, or whatever. The question is, can the 4th communicate video evidence he sees? I don't know if the MON staff showed Philip the video, or just told him it existed. But either way, the credit goes to him for speaking up about it, even if he got the info from somewhat dubious circumstances. It raises fairness questions though. I don't know MLS policy on this kind of thing, and if both teams need identical access to tablets and house video. If so, no problem. But if not, then had not been the home team, that call likely would not have been reversed.
The comm audio for that offside call is available on the recent Inside Video Review here: The VAR appears to catch it before there’s any communication from the crew from the field (though you can hear someone on the crew shortly after say “they’re saying there was someone on the line” — which I think is Saghafi).
We don’t know that for sure. There’s a cut in the video/audio we get, we don’t know what might have happened in between.
The CR is on field speaking with players. I believe it is he who says "they’re [the players] saying there was someone on the line” and the booth confirm "I got it out of the corner of my eye."
The water is murky here but there are many times on field officials tell the VAR that “the players are asking for…”. Perhaps it’s a handball or someone is saying they got spit on or they got punched in the face and nobody on the field saw it. The issue in the past is that leagues didn’t have VAR so using an in stadium replay would be expressly prohibited. However, in this case information was relayed to VAR for an objective decision about information they didn’t originally have before play restarted. This is all within the protocol. Ideally, this could have come from the AR who would communicate the unusual situation of a player off the field (or almost off the field).
The video is conveniently and clearly edited so that we don't hear the communication as to what prompted the wider angle replay. As transparent as PRO is, I don't think anyone was expecting them to include that conversation in the Inside Video Review segment. I don't think anyone is buying Radford's "I caught it out of the corner of my eye" comment.
Though I agree with the first part (and always have been beating that drum) it's not like the Radford quote is made up and inserted after-the-fact. A LOT was going on at once here and in three different locations (on-field, in the VOR, and in teh techncial areas). You have audio being inputed from all three locations. Multiple things can be true at once.
@incognitoind answers this in more depth than I will here. But I'd just add that the mantra in this era is "get the call correct." So if the 4th has access to information that will prevent an unforgiveable mistake, he has an obligation to relay it. Now, how that would net out if the information was subsequently unverifiable in the VOR is an entirely different matter and would depend upon the personnel, I suspect. But while it's probably easy to imagine such a scenario in theory, I think it's close to impossible to actually happen in practice at this level.
So under the mantra of "get the call correct" why isn't AR1 piping up? He is listening to the conversation between Radford and Saghafi why doesn't he pipe up and say, "hey guys the 2LD was way out wide near me and close to the goal line." Also, could plays like this (although rare) see in the future the AR involved getting called into the OFR? The NHL does this on coaches challenges for offside. Rather than the on ice referees reviewing offside (a call that like a CR they would never make) the on ice linesmen review the video on a rinkside tablet.
Probably a combination of things. AR personality might have contributed. The possibility that he didn't really remember (or feel confident in his memory) could be it. And, also, ARs and 4ths have been told to generally keep silent during VAR-CR communication. That admonition came very recently, too. Now, it was accompanied by an "unless you have something critical to say" (paraphrasing) caveat. But instructions like that can be confusing, particularly when you layer in the possibility of less than 100% confidence from the AR. I'm not sure why a play like this would. The issue is in the VOR (notwithstanding, as I pointed out from the get-go here, that the key angle did show the relevant defender at the end). The issue is with camera angles and the like. If the angle did not show the player clearly, it's not like the AR being at the RRA could make him magically appear. But for interfering with opponent cases, CRs have brought the AR over when it's convenient for consultation. I think that will be increasingly rare, though. Both because it's not always convenient and PRO (rightly) wants its CRs to be able to assess OIO with the same confidence and expertise as its ARs.
There was a play at the end of the Galaxy-Whitecaps game that makes me wonder if the emphasis in 2022 on quick/automatic yellows for delaying a restart is still, well, emphasized. Galaxy defender Raheem Edwards committed a professional foul to stop a Caps break the other way; yellow card. Then he picked up the ball and threw it back down the field to delay the restart; no yellow. Last season I imagine this: yellow for the obvious takedown, and then yellow for picking up the ball and throwing it away = red card.
There is no restart being delayed in this case - the yellow card for SPA means this is a ceremonial restart