Ref, Trapp, Acosta bump into each other at midfield, Acosta falls and Trapp passes out to Santos who scores a full 10 seconds after the contact with the ref. Ref goes to VAR, calls goal back due to foul on Trapp. Any logical justification? Contact shown below Columbus scored a goal, but it was called back after Ted Unkel determined that Wil Trapp fouled Acosta on this play.No, I’m not kidding. This has gone beyond ridiculous, @PROreferees. #DCvCLB #Crew96 #DCU pic.twitter.com/UZqM75zq04— MLS Buzz (@MLS_Buzz) May 5, 2019
Yeah, Unkel screwed up and screwed you guys. After us getting screwed on a VAR last week-end, I don't feel too terribly bad, but my sympathies anyway....
That’s one angle and most certainly the worst angle to show. There are other angles that clearly show contact. Trapp kicked Acosta. It was a defensible foul call. Now, whether or not it reached the threshold of “clearly wrong” not to call is an entirely different matter. PRO just said Friday that the annulled goal in Minnesota for the arm on the goalkeeper’s shoulder should have stood because the call was too subjective and not calling the foul did not rise the the threshold for VAR intervention. I have a hard time envisaging how PRO will take that stance, yet defend this intervention. By the way, the “full 10 seconds” thing doesn’t matter—at all. This incident started the attacking phase play (APP) for Columbus. It could have been 30 seconds between this alleged foul and the goal. So long as it starts Columbus’ attacking move and that move is consistent and uninterrupted, the incident must be checked and reviewed if the VAR thinks it’s a clear foul. There’s not some sort of sliding scale as time elapses. If this is a clear foul and it is clearly wrong not to call it, then the goal gets ruled out. The question, of course, is whether or not it truly is clearly wrong not to call this. I’m skeptical.
Trapp certainly made some contact with Acosta’s foot, but it looked like Acosta’s contact/trying to avoid contact with Unkel had as much to do with him falling down as the contact from Trapp did.
The nice part about the video clip I posted is that you can slow it down, pause it, go frame by frame. Trapp made no contact with Acosta. Acosta went down due to contact with the ref. Ref made no visible gesture indicating a foul by play was allowed to continue. I have never seen the team committing the foul to be allowed to continue only to have the call made after the play. What would be the point in letting play continue? Certainly no advantage to DC to let it continue?
You are wrong about the contact. Other angles will prove you wrong. It’s not like the VAR invented something that doesn’t exist. You also have no concept of how VAR works. I tried to explain, but it appears a lost cause. You have a legitimate gripe here. You just don’t understand what it is and are therefore complaining about all the wrong stuff.
I looked for an existing thread before starting this one. I apologize for failing to meet your high standards.
Entire sequence. Different angle. Trapp’s right foot is no where near Acosta. Only contact is between Acosta and the ref. And I fully understand my gripe, thank you. Thoroughly confused why this #Crew96 goal was called back...@PROreferees ?! #MLS pic.twitter.com/1IbOHnvUB9— Taylor Twellman (@TaylorTwellman) May 5, 2019
Uh....that angle isn't definitive.... We get it; it was a shitty circumstance, a shitty call, and we agree that it probably wasn't the right decision. Pro's probably gonna say it didn't meet the bar for review. If they say anything else, Unkel's performance itself will be open to a ton of further criticism. (E.g., the yellow on Moreno, while a worse, later foul on Arriola is a simple DFK, a CLB foul uncalled....) I will say that Unkel was a good sport in high-fiving some kids on the sideline during warm-ups...Most ignore 'em.
Amazing how you can see that through 3 players on this viewpoint. I certainly can't make that declaration. (To be clear I have no idea of there was contact or not, I'm a Rapids fan, and not a ref, so no obvious biases here. Just pointing out that you can hardly see every possible point of contact with the feet and legs in this video.) Really? Because this suggests you don't.
Trapp's right leg is bent when Acosta starts to go down. Trapp's left would have to go through the ref to get to Acosta. Contact doesn't constitute a foul, either. If anything, the Acosta should be retroactively carded for simulation and the ref should take up another profession.
If the ball hit Unkel, this is exactly the type of play that demands a drop ball next year? Am I right? What could be absolutely beautiful next year is that not only will VAR be looking to see if there was a foul there, but he will also be looking to see if the ball hit the referee. Maybe there was an angle or contact that we don't see that makes it look more of a foul then it really is, but this looks like a really really bad use of VAR. I really can't stand the concept of APP. Nobody in the game wants these type of plays to go to review. When VAR was rolled out and introduced nobody had these plays in mind to fix. They really need to change APP to have the phrase "immediate" attacking phase of play or something of that nature. Not this.
So now you're suggesting there really was contact, it just doesn't rise to the level of a foul. But I though you said it was clear there was no contact.
Can we block this Crew gripe-fest and give Stanger a yellow card? It’s clear he wants to just complain.
Didn't see this thread before. Here's Caleb Porters thoughts. Here are Caleb Porter's comments, the first part of them, in regards to the way VAR was handled in tonights #DCvCLB match. Blunt and to the point, scathing indictment of Ted Unkel. Very rarely get this candor from a coach in regards to officiating. #Crew96 pic.twitter.com/OnqjBNS3hF— Pablo Iglesias Maurer (@MLSist) May 5, 2019
Of course he wants to complain. He has a legitimate reason to. And there are a lot of non-Crew fans questioning the call, just check the N&A forum.
The guy initially seemed to come here to get the referee take on what the interpretation might have been, and validate their own concern...It's what people who aren't refs usually come here for. When presented with "yeah, it's questionable at best", rather than saying "OK, well, I'm glad I'm not alone, I hope PRO clears this up and Unkel gets time to reflect..." he kinda went tin foil hat. Look, you guys got screwed by a VAR call this game, we did last game, in both cases the VAR use wasn't all that appropriate, and took way longer than it should have. It ain't changing the result, and we can just hope the refs learn something from it...
I’m not disagreeing that he has a right to complain. That’s why there are team forums. This forum is to discuss technical referee items, not to be a gripe fest for angry fans.
Out of curiosity, does the fact that Unkel was unsighted move this bar at all? Sorta like only misconduct not seen by the ref gets to be retroactively sanctioned? The official review is automatic with ball in the net, so is the conversation “hey unkel there was contact right at the beginning of the APP- you wanna see it?”? (Totally irrelevant - JJ Williams, who was a club teammate of my son’s for three years, got a real run out- subbed in for Zardes at min 65!)