That last one was painful to watch; not for the outcome, which was correct in the end, but lack of proficiency with rolling the video. The technical "driver" of the video needs to be better to minimize the delays and should have been easy to do so with more practice. I get this one was more complicated than the typical review, but if this is indicative of the process, there is clearly room to improve the efficiency with which VAR operates.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I think there are some mitigations that MLS owners would need to agree to spend significant money on to fix. 1) Reviews are relatively rare (4 in 27 games this session, previous years 1/3 of the games had a review), 2) this was a rather more complicated situation than most, 3) time pressure is hard to simulate - proficiency goes down as pressure rises, 4) AFAIK most of the VARs, and all AVARs and video operators are part-time officials and typically don't work together week-to-week - they don't have time/opportunity to practice the way players do (and I don't see owners ponying up full-time salaries any century soon). I suspect his happens in every review room in every sport. MLS is just the only league that makes it public on a regular basis.
Is there any time limit on how far back the officials can go to find a foul that negates a goal? The STL goal should have been given IMHO. There are thousands of fouls that aren't called and they of course impact the play of the game. I think the Lowen foul was 7-8 seconds before the shot on goal. Can they go back 10, 15, 20 seconds? I think as a fan, it is ridiculous to go back that far to negate a perfectly good goal. Secondly, there was a foul in the box that was completely ignored where STL player was pushed in the back as the ball was coming to him. Not a single mention of that penalty shot. And yes, that review process was amateur. They don't even know how to operate the playback?
They can go back to the start of the attacking phase. This play is pretty much exactly what they, and me as a fan, want to be reviewed. The only reason there was an attack was because of the foul, the play continued directly to the penalty area, and resulted in a shot and goal. The defense never took possession during that time. The reviews have taken way too long all season. They need to work better as a team to get the right videos when the head VAR asks.
9:28 If the VAR believes that there was a missed incident related to the goal decision that occurred before the offside was given, why not start the review on that point? That saves time if the referee agrees that the foul was missed and time is only spent reviewing the (incorrect) offside decision if needed.
I agree, but at the same time, the initial thing that they NEEDED to review was the offsides call. In all the other VAR reviews, I think they usually check APP after they clear the other issue that happens involving the goal.
@@davidsparks3684 I get why they *checked* the offside. And I would understand reviewing the offside first *if* the APP was still being checked when Dujic gets to the monitor. But where they have identified two possible reasons to disallow the goal before the review, why not go through them in temporal order (i.e., the order that determines how the match restarts, assuming the referee agrees)?
@@probaddie456 They can only review the APP (i.e. checking for a foul) if it was in the lead-up to a goal. And it's only a goal if it was onside. In order to know whether the APP is even relevant, they HAVE to start with the goal or no-goal (on/offside) decision. If it was offside, they'd just say check complete. The foul would be irrelevant, because it didn't lead to a goal. Since it was onside (and thus a goal), only then can they even bother with checking the APP.
Has the STL/ATL VAR crew ever played soccer? Overturning that goal because of that foul was ridiculous when the ref was staring at the play and told them to play on. An even better event to show would have been the SOFTEST penalty kick EVER AWARDED earlier in the game against Thorisson who got completely screwed that game by a terrible ref and VAR crew.
@@hunterjuneau7037 That doesn't mean he had a bad angle. It shouldn't be overturned because it's a judgement call so it should stick with what happened during the run of play. What do you think of the call that gave ATL the penalty kick?
@@one_mega_ohm9139 A foul that the referee did not call is explicitly called out as an incident to review (IFAB VAR Protocol, section 2: "The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are...attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc."). You are 100% correct that it's a judgment call, and the referee remains the only one who can make that judgment. In this case, the referee decided that he had misjudged the contact and that it was, in fact, a foul, negating the goal.
@@one_mega_ohm9139 I think @johnmcgimpsey1825 answered it well. As to the ATL penalty kick foul, I think it was way too soft to call a penalty. However by the letter of the law it was a foul, so it would almost never get overturned. I just don't think the ref should've call it in the first place.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
Barkey should have commented on the last referee’s stadium announcement. HOWEVER
That last one was painful to watch; not for the outcome, which was correct in the end, but lack of proficiency with rolling the video. The technical "driver" of the video needs to be better to minimize the delays and should have been easy to do so with more practice. I get this one was more complicated than the typical review, but if this is indicative of the process, there is clearly room to improve the efficiency with which VAR operates.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I think there are some mitigations that MLS owners would need to agree to spend significant money on to fix. 1) Reviews are relatively rare (4 in 27 games this session, previous years 1/3 of the games had a review), 2) this was a rather more complicated situation than most, 3) time pressure is hard to simulate - proficiency goes down as pressure rises, 4) AFAIK most of the VARs, and all AVARs and video operators are part-time officials and typically don't work together week-to-week - they don't have time/opportunity to practice the way players do (and I don't see owners ponying up full-time salaries any century soon). I suspect his happens in every review room in every sport. MLS is just the only league that makes it public on a regular basis.
Is there any time limit on how far back the officials can go to find a foul that negates a goal? The STL goal should have been given IMHO. There are thousands of fouls that aren't called and they of course impact the play of the game. I think the Lowen foul was 7-8 seconds before the shot on goal. Can they go back 10, 15, 20 seconds? I think as a fan, it is ridiculous to go back that far to negate a perfectly good goal.
Secondly, there was a foul in the box that was completely ignored where STL player was pushed in the back as the ball was coming to him. Not a single mention of that penalty shot.
And yes, that review process was amateur. They don't even know how to operate the playback?
They can go back to the start of the attacking phase. This play is pretty much exactly what they, and me as a fan, want to be reviewed. The only reason there was an attack was because of the foul, the play continued directly to the penalty area, and resulted in a shot and goal. The defense never took possession during that time.
The reviews have taken way too long all season. They need to work better as a team to get the right videos when the head VAR asks.
Filip Dujic "There is no offside (crowd erupts)... HOWEVER
9:28 If the VAR believes that there was a missed incident related to the goal decision that occurred before the offside was given, why not start the review on that point? That saves time if the referee agrees that the foul was missed and time is only spent reviewing the (incorrect) offside decision if needed.
I agree, but at the same time, the initial thing that they NEEDED to review was the offsides call. In all the other VAR reviews, I think they usually check APP after they clear the other issue that happens involving the goal.
Because if the offside stood there would be no review of the APP since it did not lead to goal (I think)
@@davidsparks3684 I get why they *checked* the offside. And I would understand reviewing the offside first *if* the APP was still being checked when Dujic gets to the monitor.
But where they have identified two possible reasons to disallow the goal before the review, why not go through them in temporal order (i.e., the order that determines how the match restarts, assuming the referee agrees)?
@@probaddie456 They can only review the APP (i.e. checking for a foul) if it was in the lead-up to a goal. And it's only a goal if it was onside.
In order to know whether the APP is even relevant, they HAVE to start with the goal or no-goal (on/offside) decision.
If it was offside, they'd just say check complete. The foul would be irrelevant, because it didn't lead to a goal.
Since it was onside (and thus a goal), only then can they even bother with checking the APP.
Has the STL/ATL VAR crew ever played soccer? Overturning that goal because of that foul was ridiculous when the ref was staring at the play and told them to play on. An even better event to show would have been the SOFTEST penalty kick EVER AWARDED earlier in the game against Thorisson who got completely screwed that game by a terrible ref and VAR crew.
The ref had a bad angle of the foul. Notice how in the review he asks for another angle before determining if it's a foul
@@hunterjuneau7037 That doesn't mean he had a bad angle. It shouldn't be overturned because it's a judgement call so it should stick with what happened during the run of play. What do you think of the call that gave ATL the penalty kick?
@@one_mega_ohm9139 A foul that the referee did not call is explicitly called out as an incident to review (IFAB VAR Protocol, section 2: "The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are...attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc."). You are 100% correct that it's a judgment call, and the referee remains the only one who can make that judgment. In this case, the referee decided that he had misjudged the contact and that it was, in fact, a foul, negating the goal.
@@one_mega_ohm9139 I think @johnmcgimpsey1825 answered it well. As to the ATL penalty kick foul, I think it was way too soft to call a penalty. However by the letter of the law it was a foul, so it would almost never get overturned. I just don't think the ref should've call it in the first place.
it doesnt matter if the ref is standing near the missed foul because it was a clear foul and it wouldbe been wrong to award a goal