Why are the CR/AR even looking up at the ball up in the sky to "lose" it? What is the ball going to do up there that needs the ref's attention? Hit a bird?
The last review in this video is a rollercoaster. This is no foul because the defender plays the ball fairly before contact. End of story. East. But the VAR (Tehini) doesn’t seem to see that contact initially and tries to look for the most contrived argument to overturn the penalty because the attacker didn’t fall down. Maybe the attacker initiated contact? No. Maybe the contact had minimal impact? Also no, it clearly slowed the attacker down and put another defender in a much better position to close down the shot. Tehini only realizes later that the defender won the ball. But she’s stuck on her weak argument when Monroy comes to the monitor, which almost leads to this play somehow not getting overturned. But let’s also talk about what would have happened if the defender didn’t touch the ball here. It’s pretty obvious that Tehini doesn’t like this penalty primarily because the attacker stays on her feet and eventually gets a mediocre shot off. But unless PRO is codifying into rule that attackers can only win penalties if they fall over, this would be a crystal clear penalty if not for the touch on the ball. In that scenario, if the attacker were to fall over from the contact, no one would question it. I think that’s worth talking about. If referees / VARs are almost explicitly saying that it can’t be a penalty if the attacker stays on their feet, I think that’s a problem. It blatantly incentivizes diving and embellishment and dishonest play. I think, if fans and players and coaches and other stakeholders were paying close enough attention, a lot of people would have a problem with that philosophy. Everybody talks about how diving and embellishment are a scourge on or sport. Yet here we have a VAR basically saying (before she saw the ball contact) that she really doesn’t want to give a penalty kick because the attacker didn’t embellish the blatant tripping contact enough.
if there is no touch...then 1000% PK. Yes, talking about attackers staying on their feet is completely ridiculous.
One of the most annoying VAR reviews I’ve heard. The borderline screeching into the mic at the referee LOOK HOW SHE KEEPS CONTROL 1 2 3 4 5 STEPS. Prime example of a VAR trying to re-referee a game. This is all notwithstanding your analysis of her completely missing the plot, caring more about the attacker staying on her feet than the touch on the ball making this not a penalty, full stop. All this needed was the reverse angle showing a clear play on the ball, review done. Compare that to a pro VAR like carol anne Chennard who is always very calm on her reviews and there’s no yelling, no insistence, as soon as the referee starts giving pushback she says “ok it’s your decision”. Hopefully she gets a nice retraining on proper etiquette as a VAR. that center should have told her to calm down as soon as she started yelling at her at the monitor
You’re being very harsh here, I think Tehini is really, really good at VAR, from whenever she comes up on Inside Video Review. She makes her decisions efficiently, goes through all the steps logically, and communicates very clearly. Obviously I disapprove of this one; I think she struggled because the logic in her head (“this can’t be a penalty because the attacker stayed on her feet”) sounds absurd when spoken aloud (author’s note: because it is absurd). But overall I think she’s a very good VAR and I’m almost always impressed by her work on Inside Video Review.
The question is how many times is her work not on Inside Video Review because some of the powers that be are trying to protect her?
Bingo. And it doesn't have to be about "protect[ing]" or even about her in particular. There's only so much bad review content PRO can put out there. Also, you're never going to share the run-of-the-mill checks regardless; you're only seeing KMIs inherently and then even then, a particular selection. Just like with refereeing, VARing is more than just KMIs. I don't think you can look at the public VAR content and make too many determinations about anyone--except that Kevin Stott is on another planet, of course (and even he's got some stuff "wrong"). The thought process here from Tehini was pretty jarring. And to the original post from @StarTime, there's a line in there that states, "if referees / VARs are almost explicitly saying that it can’t be a penalty if the attacker stays on their feet, I think that’s a problem." I was initially going to respond and say "what if it's just VAR and not VARs?" I guess I find it a bit backward to potentially lump multiple officials in on a line of reasoning that we only have evidence for from one individual.
Fair point, and I guess that was presumptuous on my part. That said I still feel it’s likely that many VARs and referees could have the same problem. It’s very easy for me to believe that there’s a subconscious expectation in a lot of referees to not call penalties like this where the attacker fights through the contact. But what matters, of course, is overcoming that subconscious temptation when the facts are pointing in the other direction, and since we haven’t seen too many of these plays, yes, I should not assume all VARs would stumble at the same hurdle.
I don't know if it's a problem. I think most people want and expect a high "not trifling" bar when it comes to penalty kicks. My internal definition of trifling is "The play proceeds approximately the same without the contact". Here, the attacker takes a shot from a similar position as she would have but for the contact. The main impact from the contact is buying the defender an extra second to get in position. Since the defender winds up blocking the shot, I lean toward not trifling/pk. If the attacker had only the keeper to beat, I would probably go the other way. The slight touch on the ball the defender gets isn't enough.
An easy mental pattern to fall into is that if an attacker and a defender collide, it's a foul on the defender. But the defender has just as much right to the ball on their own side of the halfway mark as the other team does. If a defender is playing the ball and not moving toward the attacker and then the attacker creates contact, that's not a foul on the defender, especially if the attacker is the "last mover" who initiated the contact. Try watching it again from the 7:40 mark in the video. The defender is standing still and stretches horizontally out not in an attempt to trip the attacker, but in an attempt to play the ball, which she does (albeit not very effectively). Contact isn't created by the defender stretching out, it's created by the attacker running directly at the defender and kneeing her in the thigh (so closer to her torso, not the outstretched foot), knocking the defender over. Consider if this were an attacker stretching out and playing a light touch on the ball and a defender runs at her and knees her in the thigh without getting the ball again until she knocks the attacker over. Which way does the foul go? I know, I know, reality, expectations, etc...
I will admit that I don’t focus on VARs and know exactly who is doing it, unless it’s carol anne chennard because she stands out. Maybe tehini is a good VAR normally, although a few comments above seem to possibly state otherwise. But I just have the opinion that based on this specific instance, not even looking at the merits of her flawed logic about why it wasn’t a penalty, just her entire attitude and demeanor while talking with the CR was really inappropriate to me. The VAR and CR are supposed to be a team helping each other and this was more like the VAR arguing with her demanding her to take her perspective. Really did not like this at all. Especially compared to the normal inside video reviews, or the la Liga released var audio, or EPL mic’d up series, where they are much more calm and helpful to each other
These should be taken with a grain of salt, but whatever data provider feeds websites like Fotmob & Soccerway has the following USOC crews Chicago Fire FC vs New England Revolution REF: Greg Dopka AR1: Ian McKay AR2: Stephen Milhoan 4TH: Johnathan Luk San Jose Earthquakes vs Portland Timbers REF: Ramy Touchan AR1: Darren Bandy AR2: Peter Hanson 4TH: Robert Vincze --- D.C. United vs Charlotte FC REF: Sergii Demianchuk AR1: Jeremy Smith AR2: Zach McWhorter 4TH: Matthew Corrigan Minnesota United FC vs St. Louis CITY SC REF: Brandon Stevis AR1: John Krill AR2: Art Arustamyan 4TH: Ryan Farrell New York Red Bulls vs FC Dallas REF: Alyssa Nichols AR1: Tom Felice AR2: Christian Little 4TH: Luis Diego Arroyo Orlando City SC vs Nashville SC REF: Joshua Encarnacion AR1: Rhett Hammil AR2: Ben Rigel 4TH: Alejo Calume Philadelphia Union vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds REF: Natalie Simon AR1: Eric Weisbrod AR2: Max Smith 4TH: John Matto Austin FC vs Houston Dynamo FC REF: Tim Ford AR1: Jennifer Garner AR2: Ricardo Ocampo 4TH: Rodrigo Albuquerque Touchan and Ford both jump out considering their lack of MLS whistles so far this year. Perhaps they're back to fitness.
Sloppy sequence 86’ in SJvPOR Touchan didn’t call a foul on a hold by the Portland defender, AR2 (Peter Hanson) flagged after a short hesitation, and then started moving in towards the corner flag as if to signal penalty kick. Apparently Touchan didn’t recognize that nonverbal communication cuz he hesitated a lot before finally pointing to the spot. Then after that, Portland players surrounded the assistant and Touchan tried to speak with him, and after some minutes they ended up changing their call eventually to direct free kick. During the dissent sequence, Touchan also made the new “X, captain only” signal with his arms. I didn’t realize that was in effect yet? Well, it had essentially no positive effect anyways and two Timbers got booked for dissent, which honestly feels like it’s on the low side. And the cherry on top is I think the AR had it right the first time. It’s extremely close but the hold just barely continues inside the penalty area. The whole process was sloppy, regardless of the final outcome, anyways.
I don't think AR2 has had a very good game. Flagged an offside on what would have been a POR breakaway in the first half, but the attacker appeared to have been still inside his own half when the ball was played (albeit only just...it was a flash lag situation). Shortly into the second half there was what looked like a pretty blatant handball in the PA in that quadrant that I think needed his involvement. Then this whole in/out decision looked very weak all around.
I got two questions on NWSL video review 1. am I blind, does no one else see orange #20 sole of her shoe hit the ball first, and clear deflection off it before the attacker touches it? 2. where does the ref get the initial DOGSO-PK YC from? The attacker who is fouled would be facing sideways on a bouncing ball away from her and there’s defenders around too.
1. I see the same thing you do, although I would never use the word “clear” to describe it. If another (nonexistent) angle proved me wrong, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised. 2. Could be for Reckless I guess?
Does anyone else have DOGSO red/pk on the Angel City GK for the shirt pull prior to the handling PK by her defender a few seconds later in the Angel City - Louisville game?
I don't have a touch, but I feel like we need 2 more frames to be able to tell if there is movement on the ball before the attacker touch. The non-foul is reckless if not for the touch on the ball. It is lunging, with moderate force, making contact with a soft body part (thigh) on the ankle.
If I can I will try to get a clip and keep cycling it over and over again Regarding the PK, the ref says live that she has it for DOGSO playing the ball, which makes no sense to me. But after seeing it again, the GK actually does get a near scissoring motion on the ankle (it gets in between her lunging calf and sliding thigh), which I think is what you’re talking about, so that could be reckless. But the DOGSO-playing ball initial card makes no sense so I feel like I missed something
Was the goal scorer (initially) in an offside position or the player on the far post that the defender prevented the ball from getting to?
Right. She was offside. She knew she was offside (reference her behavior to casually walk and not get involved with the play initially) and then shot off a deflection by the defender, which didn't reset her offside status.