@@johnmcgimpsey1825 sure. But their blog "The definitive angle" also only explains decisions that went full VAR. In SEAvVAN game, CR paused game to wait for VAR to check VAN handball. And then VAR said no problem. Even the VAN announcers were saying it was gonna be called back for PK. And when Noohou got called for it, the VAN announcer said it was also hands, but it was no different than the earlier infraction that didn't garner a full VAR check. He was audibly perplexed at the inconsistency, even when it benefited his side. And that guy is usually pretty biased. The point is that VAR recommended a check for one and not the other, and your response is: this channel is just for reviews that a CR ends up looking at. Fine, but we are all confused that the SEA handball went full VAR and the VAN one didn't. The VAN one was certainly on target and 6 yards out, and the the SEA one was at the edge of the 18, and not clear if the shot would have even been on target. Not sure that matters from a rule standpoint, but it matters to fans, and the game's outcome.
@@supermariochamp VAR fully checks all potential penalties, but they certainly didn't say "no problem" on the first one. They *probably* said (in the VAR room) something to the effect that it was a no-call that they couldn't classify as a clear and obvious error. So they did tell the ref "check complete". As for the commentators, they barely know the laws much less the FIFA Considerations that referees use in determining fouls and misconduct. Nouhou's handball was COMPLETELY different than the earlier incident - he started his slide with arm outstretched making himself bigger, as opposed to pulling the arm in (whether you think there was a chicken wing or not, time to react or not, etc.). FWIW, ask any referee and they'll tell you that it's NEVER the same situation - even if it's just the angle of view that the ref has.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 I'm ok with your explanation. I played from age 6, through high school, and rec after that. I think a lot of rules ruin the game. I watch some of these and explanations on this channel and I cringe most times I hear "unnatural position". The VAR watch in slow, freeze frames, and then say "unnatural". And I often watch and ask myself if these refs have ever tried to run, stop, jump, or change directions at full speed. All while holding their arms taped to their sides. I know I don't make the rules. And I don't even have a good solution on how to write them. But I do watch some of these calls being reviewed, and I just shake my head. And i respect the refs. That's a tough job to do, let alone do it well... I was initially excited for VAR to arrive. Now I view it as just as bad as the officiating situation before it arrived.
Nah, that's just dishonest to only review the handball from Seattle and not the one from Vancouver. It's the whiplash from those 2 calls taken next to each other that really spells it out.
If you have to look at it more than 6 times or from more than three camera angles, it's not clear and obvious. Refs should ref, and VAR should stay out of it most of the time. I'm perfectly fine with calls being missed, play on. I'd prefer to see VAR only really be involved to possibly overturn a ref's call on the field.
They really think 8:44 is the point of contact? The ball clearly has not hit his arm yet but they pause there. what are they looking at? Why did they focus on behind the play angles instead of using sideline angles to determine point of contact? I think 9:16 is the point of contact which on the shoulder. His arm is lower and is in a natural position at the real point of contact.
My guess: To sell the decision. Players are going to accept the decision much better if they know the ref has seen it, rather than just a voice on the radio.
Because MLS protocol is an absolute joke, they also send referees to the monitor to review factual offsides. Like at everything else, they want to be different than the rest of the world.
To be fair, "Inside Video Review" is very consistent in that it almost never addresses incidents that don't go to Video Review. What would you expect to hear? "Checking for handball. Maybe something there, but it's not clear and obvious that the ref got it wrong. Check complete" - anyone can easily infer that. Even if PRO would rather the VAR recommend a review, that's a training issue - it's not going to be enlightening YT video.
I was under the impression that it was looked at by VAR and waved play on. It would be helpful to have a thoughtful explanation as to what makes those plays different. This would be the channel for it.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 and that’s what makes it transparency theater rather change real thing. There was clearly a discussion about the Vancouver hand ball between the officials as they held play. The slow motion after the game showed the arm much more extended at the point of contact than was Nouhou’s. But no discussion here afterwards. Did the center tell him no, did the VAR not have a good enough angle and took less time looking for it. The Nouhou decision was the longest review of the week why did it take so much longer than the one just 4 minutes earlier?
@@chrismitchell2059 You just described exactly what this show is not about. It's not about discussing calls which didn't go to an on field review. It's a pretty clear line this segment is defined by. It always has been there way. I also find it amazing how time after time fans from the same team play victim and complain something is being hidden when the calls they claim are in question are pretty straight forward.
@@MrCho14and you just described why this is transparency theater rather than the real thing. The video only covers reviews where the official goes to the monitor. By definition that call should be correct 100% of the time since they are only supposed to cover “clear and obvious errors”. The fact that there are admission of error, however rare, in these videos shows the flaws in the system. To get better they should choose the most controversial calls and show the video/audio whether or not the center goes to the monitor. If their intent is transparency, which it should be, they are failing pretty hard.
I get why the segment doesn’t talk about the Vancouver handball but why didn’t you talk about the IM “foul” in the box that gave Vancouver a penalty? The ref was clearly biased against Miami, calling every foul and yellow card happy. If you are gonna do this segment to show accountability you need to be unbiased, otherwise you are gonna lose viewers like you just lost one.
I think the VAR experiment should end. Reviews are inconsistent, take too long, and are wrecking the game. They provide value in /obvious/ errors, but if you have to look at 3 camera angles at 4 different speeds for 5 minutes, it's not helping the game.
Okay, then get rid of video review and accept that referees are human and incorrect calls are part of the game. I’m sure you’ll be very accepting of that when there are calls that go against your team that VAR would have fixed.
@@Not_a_smart_man My point is that the game is actually worse with VAR. It's inconsistent and slow, and we see /more/ mistakes than we saw before while watching a game that gets interrupted everytime a video jockey gets excited about super slow motion. I would support VAR for reversing egregious errors (mistaken identity, or red-card offenses off the ball) - and let VAR make the call - don't send the ref over to watch slo mo video for 5 minutes while the players stand around.
@@angryweasel "and we see /more/ mistakes than we saw before" you're just flat out lying with no evidence. PRO even releases an end of season video showing the season VAR results and they fix many many dozens of on-field errors. You want VAR for only the most egregious errors like mistaken identity or violent conduct in exchange for a delay-less game? Okay, then when the referees make all the other errors in games you watch like close offside decisions, close penalties, etc. then you better fully accept them.
@@dangerdanadv1445 Going from memory about a recent article so not exact numbers: Referees on the field get over 85% of the reviewable calls correct on the field the first time. With VAR, calls are correct 92% of the time. So, yeah, an improvement, but that's hardly big enough to offset all the time delays, lack of flow, etc. Just the fact we have to talk about it week after week takes completely away from the actual game itself. It's not a matter of lack of perspective. It's about what people prioritize in watching and enjoying games.
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
But you didn’t review the very obvious handball by Vancouver earlier in the game, can you explain why?
FWIW, "Inside Video Review' rarely discusses incidents that didn't result in a Video Review - kind of out of the remit of the show.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 sure. But their blog "The definitive angle" also only explains decisions that went full VAR. In SEAvVAN game, CR paused game to wait for VAR to check VAN handball. And then VAR said no problem. Even the VAN announcers were saying it was gonna be called back for PK. And when Noohou got called for it, the VAN announcer said it was also hands, but it was no different than the earlier infraction that didn't garner a full VAR check. He was audibly perplexed at the inconsistency, even when it benefited his side. And that guy is usually pretty biased. The point is that VAR recommended a check for one and not the other, and your response is: this channel is just for reviews that a CR ends up looking at. Fine, but we are all confused that the SEA handball went full VAR and the VAN one didn't. The VAN one was certainly on target and 6 yards out, and the the SEA one was at the edge of the 18, and not clear if the shot would have even been on target. Not sure that matters from a rule standpoint, but it matters to fans, and the game's outcome.
@@supermariochamp VAR fully checks all potential penalties, but they certainly didn't say "no problem" on the first one. They *probably* said (in the VAR room) something to the effect that it was a no-call that they couldn't classify as a clear and obvious error. So they did tell the ref "check complete". As for the commentators, they barely know the laws much less the FIFA Considerations that referees use in determining fouls and misconduct. Nouhou's handball was COMPLETELY different than the earlier incident - he started his slide with arm outstretched making himself bigger, as opposed to pulling the arm in (whether you think there was a chicken wing or not, time to react or not, etc.). FWIW, ask any referee and they'll tell you that it's NEVER the same situation - even if it's just the angle of view that the ref has.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 I'm ok with your explanation. I played from age 6, through high school, and rec after that. I think a lot of rules ruin the game. I watch some of these and explanations on this channel and I cringe most times I hear "unnatural position". The VAR watch in slow, freeze frames, and then say "unnatural". And I often watch and ask myself if these refs have ever tried to run, stop, jump, or change directions at full speed. All while holding their arms taped to their sides. I know I don't make the rules. And I don't even have a good solution on how to write them. But I do watch some of these calls being reviewed, and I just shake my head. And i respect the refs. That's a tough job to do, let alone do it well... I was initially excited for VAR to arrive. Now I view it as just as bad as the officiating situation before it arrived.
Nah, that's just dishonest to only review the handball from Seattle and not the one from Vancouver. It's the whiplash from those 2 calls taken next to each other that really spells it out.
If you have to look at it more than 6 times or from more than three camera angles, it's not clear and obvious. Refs should ref, and VAR should stay out of it most of the time. I'm perfectly fine with calls being missed, play on. I'd prefer to see VAR only really be involved to possibly overturn a ref's call on the field.
They really think 8:44 is the point of contact? The ball clearly has not hit his arm yet but they pause there. what are they looking at? Why did they focus on behind the play angles instead of using sideline angles to determine point of contact? I think 9:16 is the point of contact which on the shoulder. His arm is lower and is in a natural position at the real point of contact.
Pierre-Luc Lauzière est un terrible arbitre de football.
I see Pro refs disregarded showing the Portland San Jose game…that was a travesty of officiating.
Week 2 of asking PRO referees to caution players who interrupt OFRs.
the last clip is factual decision. Ball clear goal, why referee still go to monitor???
My guess: To sell the decision. Players are going to accept the decision much better if they know the ref has seen it, rather than just a voice on the radio.
MLS review policy
the current protocol is that the only error that can be called without the referee review is a mistaken identity issue.
Because MLS protocol is an absolute joke, they also send referees to the monitor to review factual offsides. Like at everything else, they want to be different than the rest of the world.
@@fe1odd take considering MLS has implemented VAR better than every league in the world.
Why no goal line technology??
too expensive for mls
So inconsistency from you.
Admit one day that you didn't review a potential handball on Vancouver.
To be fair, "Inside Video Review" is very consistent in that it almost never addresses incidents that don't go to Video Review. What would you expect to hear? "Checking for handball. Maybe something there, but it's not clear and obvious that the ref got it wrong. Check complete" - anyone can easily infer that. Even if PRO would rather the VAR recommend a review, that's a training issue - it's not going to be enlightening YT video.
I was under the impression that it was looked at by VAR and waved play on. It would be helpful to have a thoughtful explanation as to what makes those plays different. This would be the channel for it.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 and that’s what makes it transparency theater rather change real thing. There was clearly a discussion about the Vancouver hand ball between the officials as they held play. The slow motion after the game showed the arm much more extended at the point of contact than was Nouhou’s. But no discussion here afterwards. Did the center tell him no, did the VAR not have a good enough angle and took less time looking for it. The Nouhou decision was the longest review of the week why did it take so much longer than the one just 4 minutes earlier?
@@chrismitchell2059 You just described exactly what this show is not about. It's not about discussing calls which didn't go to an on field review. It's a pretty clear line this segment is defined by. It always has been there way.
I also find it amazing how time after time fans from the same team play victim and complain something is being hidden when the calls they claim are in question are pretty straight forward.
@@MrCho14and you just described why this is transparency theater rather than the real thing. The video only covers reviews where the official goes to the monitor. By definition that call should be correct 100% of the time since they are only supposed to cover “clear and obvious errors”. The fact that there are admission of error, however rare, in these videos shows the flaws in the system. To get better they should choose the most controversial calls and show the video/audio whether or not the center goes to the monitor. If their intent is transparency, which it should be, they are failing pretty hard.
I get why the segment doesn’t talk about the Vancouver handball but why didn’t you talk about the IM “foul” in the box that gave Vancouver a penalty? The ref was clearly biased against Miami, calling every foul and yellow card happy. If you are gonna do this segment to show accountability you need to be unbiased, otherwise you are gonna lose viewers like you just lost one.
I think the VAR experiment should end. Reviews are inconsistent, take too long, and are wrecking the game. They provide value in /obvious/ errors, but if you have to look at 3 camera angles at 4 different speeds for 5 minutes, it's not helping the game.
Okay, then get rid of video review and accept that referees are human and incorrect calls are part of the game. I’m sure you’ll be very accepting of that when there are calls that go against your team that VAR would have fixed.
@@Not_a_smart_man My point is that the game is actually worse with VAR. It's inconsistent and slow, and we see /more/ mistakes than we saw before while watching a game that gets interrupted everytime a video jockey gets excited about super slow motion.
I would support VAR for reversing egregious errors (mistaken identity, or red-card offenses off the ball) - and let VAR make the call - don't send the ref over to watch slo mo video for 5 minutes while the players stand around.
The game is absolutely not worse with VAR, the folks who say that seriously lack perspective @@angryweasel
@@angryweasel "and we see /more/ mistakes than we saw before" you're just flat out lying with no evidence. PRO even releases an end of season video showing the season VAR results and they fix many many dozens of on-field errors.
You want VAR for only the most egregious errors like mistaken identity or violent conduct in exchange for a delay-less game? Okay, then when the referees make all the other errors in games you watch like close offside decisions, close penalties, etc. then you better fully accept them.
@@dangerdanadv1445 Going from memory about a recent article so not exact numbers: Referees on the field get over 85% of the reviewable calls correct on the field the first time. With VAR, calls are correct 92% of the time. So, yeah, an improvement, but that's hardly big enough to offset all the time delays, lack of flow, etc. Just the fact we have to talk about it week after week takes completely away from the actual game itself.
It's not a matter of lack of perspective. It's about what people prioritize in watching and enjoying games.