It was a ridiculous review that should have never been initiated and killed a great moment. In the spirit of video review/VAR in college soccer, that's is nowhere near enough to go to review. Just an awful review. Thankfully, they allowed the goal to stand. The college rules are all pretty dumb, but golden goal/sudden death is pretty awesome.
'winning goal'. To be clear this was a golden goal in OT. UW already had the trophy in hand when they said it was under review and had it, temporarily, taken away from them. What a tough spot for the referee to be in. I was watching on a less than big screen so I couldn't tell for certain how much the offside player interfered. Highlights I found so far are showing the goal immediately after the portion in question. It looks like they're purposely not showing.
I think it is pretty clear that the attacker is standing in an offside position, then makes contact with the defender and prevents the defender from challenging the opponent for the ball. What am I missing here?
I sorta figured it wouldn’t get overturned - but I also thought it arguably was the wrong call. But it was a little hard to tell from the tv.
You lose me on this. You want to get the call right and it looked like an offside player clearly interfered with play. I can see why it wasn’t overturned but I also think it might have been offside and should have been overturned.
To be fair, the interfering was somewhat minor and arguably didn’t impact the play significantly. Which is why I wasn’t shocked it wasn’t overturned.
I take it there wasn’t much controversy with the officiating in this game, unlike the abhorrent referee performance in last year’s men’s final
That's much clearer than what I could see on my small screen live. The defender was absolutely shielded from playing the ball from a player who was clearly offside at the point of contact. Is there anything in this play that is interpreted differently in NCAA than the LOTG?
I am not sure that the given angle is conclusive that the attacker in question was offside when the ball was played. The camera is not in line with the second to last defender. I agree that it appears the attacker was offside, but the standard for changing a call in NCAA is indisputable video evidence. Not sure that we can get there on this one.
Exactly. I think an MLS VAR clears this as check complete. The camera angle makes the attacker appear further away from second to last defender than he really is. He's probably just level. However, isn't this play in the grey zone of whether it show go to review in the first place? From instructions I've heard while you can go back and review an offside offense in the build up to a goal it has to be pretty obvious to everyone. The philosophy of video review in college soccer is not to go and microscopically analyze every goal and find a reason to disallow it like at the professional level. This felt like a crew just initiating a review for the sake of initiating a review which is a troubling trend in college soccer. Referees are going to the monitor just for the sake of going to the monitor.
So last year, the women’s final or semifinal allows a handball to score the game winning goal. Another play where a player drove both her studs up into the groin of her opponent, they went to review and kept it a yellow card. You also had a referee perform completely incompetently in a conference final, gets to do the men’s final and is incompetent there too This year, the game winning men’s goal is scored when an offside player clearly prevented a defender from playing the ball. They go to review and say it didn’t happen, goal stands This is the standard of NCAA officiating? This is a complete joke. I remember @msilverstein47 talk about how he was a college ref for many years, officiated properly, and never got promoted to any good games. When THIS dog shit is the standard they’re working with, no wonder. edit: probably flew a bit too off the handle, zooming in a lot more it’s likely too close to overturn
One of the issues we are having is that conferences are putting pressure on referees to review everything. In that context, it is understandable why the ref went to review last night. There may be some momentum to move to a coaches challenge system. The opposition to that is coming from the conferences who have invested heavily in video review systems who feel that they would not be getting enough bang for their buck.
He wasn't even clearly offside, so the rest of your comment is moot. Is he probably offside? Yes. But since you can't tell for sure with that angle, nothing else matters.
I'm very much an "angles lie" guy on these type of plays. "Indisputable" is tough to get behind. I do think it's something MLS has a decent chance of overturning, but at the same time I don't think MLS is close to being consistent on these bad angle reviews so....:shrug: PS: My son is at NCSU (not an athlete there) so I do have some connection to one of the sides. I know even I say I'm objective, there has to be a little bit of me that's not.
You always fly off the handle because you write like a teenage boy or maybe you are one, but that's not important. College soccer officiating has a lot of problems. The video review system in college soccer is a giant joke and I've maintained that from day one. It just structurally and mechanically doesn't make sense. You are fundamentally asking officials to question their own calls. It's hugely problematic. So you are getting these ridiculous and unnecessary reviews. If you want video review in college soccer just do it how the pros do it and have a video review official who tells the referee to go to the monitor. Every other sport basically does that but college soccer. As far as last night, it is a good goal and should have never been reviewed. By any reading of the protocols of video review there is no way they should have gone to the monitor. Also, if you're going to review that goal why are you not going to the monitor to review this challenge in the same game for SFP? You see how problematic this is? Let's microscopically analyze a goal that is just barely within the video review protocols of college soccer, but not review of a tackle that at the collegiate level checks a lot of boxes for SFP. I think a yellow is definitely the correct call in MLS, but in college where they talk about player safety this is more than a hint of red. Also, if you want to criticize bad officiating criticize this. What is he watching? Just laughable. This is the second time I recall this same referee going to the monitor and just completely missing what happened. These two clips explain why you need a video review official to walk through his potential error. If you just go there alone with no clue of what you are going to see you end up in a fog of war and miss the forest from the trees. We've seen it on MLS games where the referee goes in with a mindset that they saw something completely different and the VAR basically had to drag them across the finish line to the right decision.
To be clear, we're focusing on the 2LD as the player on the far side of the field nearest to the AR right? In the freeze frame, he's the deepest defender. From the camera angle, it's not indisputable video evidence that the attacker is clearly in an offside position.
So these were my two thoughts, watching last night. I plead mostly ignorance on NCAA offside rules. If there's something different from Law 11 on the minutae of interpretation, I can't engage. But if there's not, this felt like a clear offside violation to me if the player is actually in an offside position. @Midwest Ref points out the angle, but also I have a hard time seeing when exactly the ball last is played. Where I came down was this: 1) If the goal was upheld because the position of the relevant attacker was in doubt, fine/great. 2) If the goal was upheld because the referee felt this wasn't an offside violation even though offside position was established, that's a problem (notwithstanding my ignorance above on NCAA-specific stuff. I agree in MLS, with the available evidence you get check complete from most VARs. I wonder what you get in England, though, if the lines confirm OSP. Because this is more of a clear violation than the line of sight stuff we've seen recently, but I bet it feels like less of one to English officials because it happens a few touches before the goal. Genuinely don't know what an English VMO team would do here (again, if OSP was established affirmatively).
One other question. Does anyone know what prompted the referee to go the monitor? Did AR 2 tell him that the far attacker might be in an OSP and interfering with play or did the referee just go to the monitor for the sake of going to confirm the goal because it was a golden goal? There is no way that the referee could have known in real time there could be a hint of offside on the goal so did the AR prompt him to go and have a look just in case? I have my doubts there. If not, then this is another example of referees just going to the monitor for the sake of going to the monitor to "be sure."
Maybe it is too close to be able to confirm that it was offside I’m not a teenager, I’m just an idiot who gets too excitable and hyperbolic about refereeing stuff and I’ll never learn. But thanks for posting those extra videos. I do still hold the belief that college soccer officiating seems to be pretty crappy based on what I’ve seen from a number of semifinal or final level games that get posted. Maybe it’s just confirmation bias where you’re not gonna see the vast majority of decisions that are correct, just the ones that are wrong Also, with respect to that abhorrent no-handball call, and really any decision including this offside one, what’s the point of using the announcement to be crowd but no explaining your reasoning as to why? Why not announce WHY the clear handball isn’t a handball? Or why the seemingly clear SFP tackle isn’t SFP. See, this seems like a great opportunity to actually explain why to the crowd. So you can explain if it’s #1 or #2. I would have to assume it’s #1 anyway.
What's wrong with the Penn State offside call? I'm curious what protocols said last night's goal shouldn't be reviewed because it was a game winning goal and it looked pretty clearly offside to me (even if it's not "indisputable"). Why wouldn't you want that reviewed? What is ridiculous and unnecessary?
Law 11 in IFAB is the same as in NCAA or it should be. None of us college referees actually read the offside rule in the NCAA rule book. We just assume it is the same as IFAB. If the attacker was clearly in an offside position, the goal should have been disallowed. However, video review protocols in college soccer are not like in MLS/IFAB. Every goal or penalty kick is not "checked." Although, I've seen multiple instances of referees going to the monitor after awarding the most obvious penalty kick in the world to make people "happy." Because the referee can only initiate review (coaches challenge not withstanding), the bar for a video review should be exponentially higher and that has been instructed to us. Basically, if everyone is appealing then you go to the monitor. In college soccer, there is no review for fouls in the APP. If an attacker committed a foul to dispossess a defender and score a goal that goal is not reviewable. Same thing if you commit a handling offense in the build up to a goal. All goals for an offside infraction are reviewable. Technically, you can disallow a goal for an offside offense via video review if there was an offside infraction in the build up to the goal (i.e. an attacker came back to collect a ball from an offside position 15 passes prior to the build up of a goal). However, that is not really the spirit of video review. Instruction from the NCAA has been to go to video review if "essentially everyone is appealing." Does it feel and smell like an offside offense (i.e. an attacker beats an offside trap to score a breakaway goal). You go and review that. It hasn't been lets go check if the pass 5 minutes ago was offside. You also can't disallow a given penalty kick if there was an offside in the build up. Also, if you are checking for a potential penalty kick via video review and you see an offside offense in the build up you can't award the offside offense and not give the penalty kick. You have to give the penalty kick. It's all just so dumb. Anyways, there is no way this goal met that criteria. I'm 99% confident if this goal was scored in the 1st minute of the game, there is no way a video review is being initiated. This was just a check to cover our asses and they ended up having a situation where a review was possibly justified.