I'm curious about people's perspective on the last call. I remember a playoff game with Raul Ruidiaz being pulled down in the box and the refs said no penalty because Ruidiaz couldn't have gotten to the ball anyway. But, if that's the threshold for a penalty, then this means you could just take out every player in the box who can't to that cross and there would be no penalties. Cross comes in, it's not coming to the guy you're covering, so you just throw that guy to ground - no problems. That doesn't feel like the precedent that MLS or PRO would want to set. Yet, they continue to do so. For me, a foul committed in the box should be a penalty.
I’m with you. It should even have been evaluated for violent conduct, since there was the push to the back, and when the defender was down, an extra push to the back of the head. That wasn’t a soccer play. If it had been the defender committing the foul, it would have been ruled a penalty. That has to go both ways.
The last one, I like the result but I have other questions on it. Was that still considered part of the APP? The defenders made a play on the ball and cleared it 30 yards out. My understanding is that this would reset the APP.
Yes! I was looking for this comment. I was under the impression that the app was restarted when the defending team controls the ball. In this case he didn’t possess it long but it wasn’t like a deflection. For me, that resets the app.
I feel that the first one should have been a DOGSO red anyway. I know that DOGSO possession is basically eliminated with the ball in the air, but that was a wide open goal in front of him and the pull is what caused his leg to be late stretching out. If he touches that ball, it’s a goal. It’s a shame that a defender can get somewhat rewarded for yanking back on an attacker in front of a wide open net just because the ball was in the air on a cross.
@@DukeTrout Yes, from the 6 yard box the ball could have been deflected with the chest directly over the goal line or moved towards the goal for an easy tap in goal from probably about 2 yards away. Also, at 04:57, I see both hands extended reaching across his own body and he basically punches the ball with his left hand. The elbow was tucked in though but look at 5:08 and his hand is above the elbow and extended. Another game but at 10:30 I see the defender looking behind before backing into the attacker while leaning forward and he is already preparing to fall forward before any push. They were lucky to arrive at the correct decision the wrong way. I think the argument could be made if a foul was committed it disrupted the defensive position of the player and his ability to defend that side of the box. Basically, I totally disagree with the logic, assumptions, and decision making process from both Sounders plays and the last clip. The other plays are clear and simple with the correct decision being made.
I get where the referee is coming from, but I think that was an easy header had he not been pulled back. The referee is good to be thinking that the ball was in the air and not yet controlled, but I think he got this one wrong.
@@MrCho14thank you for being a respectful soccer fan. There aren’t many people like you. People can disagree with calls the official makes but don’t lash out on the. For trying there best.
Second review is at the very least a pk & a yellow card to the defender. (Possible red) The ref says “I don’t know if he’s even getting to that ball” yeah obviously he’s not getting to it because the defender is holding him back from his jersey. They missed that one…
For the Sounders game at the time I thought for sure it was a handball and was mad the pk was called back. After watching this I still don't like it, but I can understand why the ref made his decision. Either way it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game.
It sure looks like the defender is making himself bigger by turning his body instead of taking a step to the side. Should have been a handball. The other play should have been a PK for a jersey pull (could have headed the ball without the pull).
This is why fans despise MLS referees. The refs in this video made such a big deal out of Chicago #24 Jonathan Dean holding the jersey of Seattle Paul Rothrock #14 inside the box. This happens but doesn't get called 10 or more times every game. Often it involves not just holding a jersey but grabbing the other player by one arm, or both arms, or even a bear hug around the torso. These refs are like Captain Renault in the movie Casablanca: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see gambling going on in here" only now it's "I'm SHOCKED to see Jonathan Dean holding Paul Rothrock's jersey!" If ever there was a sport that needs to replace human refs with AI its Soccer.
The second play is such an obvious PK. What a terrible ref. He had the time to head the ball without the pull. PRO refs are truly a bad joke. In the third play the defender is absolutely making himself bigger by turning his body. Berhalter flops forward. He initiates contact and never tries to move his feet. Just falls forward when a little contact is made.
How on earth, with the high bar that gets set for “clear and obvious” does that Jonathan Rodriguez goal get called back? During the game, I thought it was the right call, but looking at what VAR based it on, I see shoulder/chest contact and maybe no arm at all. I definitely don’t see any clear and obvious arm contact, especially in the context of how skilled Rodriguez is at directing the ball with his chest. PRO should work on their consistency of applying the “clear and obvious” standard.
@@flynn3065 I thought so too, live. But this VAR changed my mind. Can you provide a timestamp from this video that shows the ball contacting Rodriguez’s arm or hand? Going frame by frame, I see shoulder, chest, air, ground. Where is the handball? Also, “settle down?” DBaD. I am calm. This call didn’t impact the outcome of the game and we can all analyze it coldly based on the merits. I’d suggest you do so and get off your high horse.
I've got to agree. Honestly, I feel like it probably came off his chest and then his arm helped control it. However, I agree that there is nothing 'clear and obvious' in the replay that shows this for sure. Therefore, the call on the field should stand. With that said, I think the threshold of 'clear and obvious' is a ridiculous bar to clear. I think they should use VAR as other leagues do to just get the call right, regardless of what the call on the field was. But, given MLS' current rules, I don't feel this should have been overturned.
I didn't like how VAR presented it and came to the conclusion with the frame by frame as I don't think the angles really showed what they thought it did. It was much clearer at full speed with the right angle as you can see the ball changing path easy. Just let the play through and the answer was right there for them.
@@MrCho14 One of the VAR assistants asked the chief if he wanted the view from behind goal and the chief shot him down. That was the only angle that might have definitively shown contact, so it was disappointing they didn’t check it. At full speed, I don’t see a change in direction that isn’t consistent with chesting the ball down. This is one of Rodriguez’s signature moves, if you will.
Interesting perspective. Not sure what you're seeing that I (20+ years reffing) would interpret as disrespect. The aim is to make the final decision as quickly as practical, and the ref's telling the VAR what he needs to see to do so. It's qualitatively not much different than the way I work with my ARs on comms (or with the ref when I'm an AR): quickly and clearly get the essential info to make the call.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Look at the Ref in the Seattle game. That ref was pretty bad in how he talked to everyone. He is rude and interrupts the VAR trying to help him repeatedly. I hope PRO reviews the refs and gets them out of the center of attention HOWEVER it takes.
@@vitowagner4473 We all hear things differently, of course. From having officiated a couple of thousand games, that sounds like a pretty normal level of conversation between referees around a key match incident - short, to the point, and no need to belabor discussion once the decision's made. Don't know how Mariscal felt, but personally, I wouldn't have felt disrespected as the VAR - they got to decisions quickly and moved on.
@@vitowagner4473I think him being short is making it seem worse than I actually was. You have to remember that the refs are running to which causes you to speak in shorter sentences in between breathing heavily
9:30 "Ugggghhhhh." Well said.
Always, thank you so much!
Glad I found this channel
I'm curious about people's perspective on the last call. I remember a playoff game with Raul Ruidiaz being pulled down in the box and the refs said no penalty because Ruidiaz couldn't have gotten to the ball anyway. But, if that's the threshold for a penalty, then this means you could just take out every player in the box who can't to that cross and there would be no penalties. Cross comes in, it's not coming to the guy you're covering, so you just throw that guy to ground - no problems. That doesn't feel like the precedent that MLS or PRO would want to set. Yet, they continue to do so. For me, a foul committed in the box should be a penalty.
I’m with you. It should even have been evaluated for violent conduct, since there was the push to the back, and when the defender was down, an extra push to the back of the head. That wasn’t a soccer play. If it had been the defender committing the foul, it would have been ruled a penalty. That has to go both ways.
The last one, I like the result but I have other questions on it. Was that still considered part of the APP? The defenders made a play on the ball and cleared it 30 yards out. My understanding is that this would reset the APP.
Yes! I was looking for this comment. I was under the impression that the app was restarted when the defending team controls the ball. In this case he didn’t possess it long but it wasn’t like a deflection. For me, that resets the app.
On the second PK review in the Sounders game, how come it resulted in a drop ball to the GK? Sounders had possession of the ball when play stopped.
The ball was in the penalty area when play was stopped - this always results in a dropped ball to the goalkeeper, regardless of possession - Law 8.2
I feel that the first one should have been a DOGSO red anyway. I know that DOGSO possession is basically eliminated with the ball in the air, but that was a wide open goal in front of him and the pull is what caused his leg to be late stretching out. If he touches that ball, it’s a goal. It’s a shame that a defender can get somewhat rewarded for yanking back on an attacker in front of a wide open net just because the ball was in the air on a cross.
Yeah, without the pullback the attacking player just chests it down into the goal. I’m with you.
@@DukeTrout Yes, from the 6 yard box the ball could have been deflected with the chest directly over the goal line or moved towards the goal for an easy tap in goal from probably about 2 yards away. Also, at 04:57, I see both hands extended reaching across his own body and he basically punches the ball with his left hand. The elbow was tucked in though but look at 5:08 and his hand is above the elbow and extended.
Another game but at 10:30 I see the defender looking behind before backing into the attacker while leaning forward and he is already preparing to fall forward before any push. They were lucky to arrive at the correct decision the wrong way. I think the argument could be made if a foul was committed it disrupted the defensive position of the player and his ability to defend that side of the box.
Basically, I totally disagree with the logic, assumptions, and decision making process from both Sounders plays and the last clip. The other plays are clear and simple with the correct decision being made.
I get where the referee is coming from, but I think that was an easy header had he not been pulled back. The referee is good to be thinking that the ball was in the air and not yet controlled, but I think he got this one wrong.
@@MrCho14 Right, penalties are called all the time when a player is fouled before the ball arrives in the box.
@@MrCho14thank you for being a respectful soccer fan. There aren’t many people like you. People can disagree with calls the official makes but don’t lash out on the. For trying there best.
Second review is at the very least a pk & a yellow card to the defender. (Possible red) The ref says “I don’t know if he’s even getting to that ball” yeah obviously he’s not getting to it because the defender is holding him back from his jersey. They missed that one…
For the Sounders game at the time I thought for sure it was a handball and was mad the pk was called back. After watching this I still don't like it, but I can understand why the ref made his decision. Either way it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game.
It sure looks like the defender is making himself bigger by turning his body instead of taking a step to the side. Should have been a handball. The other play should have been a PK for a jersey pull (could have headed the ball without the pull).
@@lopoa126 the other play was a pk for the jersey pull. We scored two goals that night, both were pk's
This is why fans despise MLS referees. The refs in this video made such a big deal out of Chicago #24 Jonathan Dean holding the jersey of Seattle Paul Rothrock #14 inside the box. This happens but doesn't get called 10 or more times every game. Often it involves not just holding a jersey but grabbing the other player by one arm, or both arms, or even a bear hug around the torso. These refs are like Captain Renault in the movie Casablanca: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see gambling going on in here" only now it's "I'm SHOCKED to see Jonathan Dean holding Paul Rothrock's jersey!" If ever there was a sport that needs to replace human refs with AI its Soccer.
The second play is such an obvious PK. What a terrible ref. He had the time to head the ball without the pull. PRO refs are truly a bad joke.
In the third play the defender is absolutely making himself bigger by turning his body.
Berhalter flops forward. He initiates contact and never tries to move his feet. Just falls forward when a little contact is made.
How on earth, with the high bar that gets set for “clear and obvious” does that Jonathan Rodriguez goal get called back? During the game, I thought it was the right call, but looking at what VAR based it on, I see shoulder/chest contact and maybe no arm at all. I definitely don’t see any clear and obvious arm contact, especially in the context of how skilled Rodriguez is at directing the ball with his chest. PRO should work on their consistency of applying the “clear and obvious” standard.
As a timbers fan this is ridiculous. That was a hand ball. Settle down
@@flynn3065 I thought so too, live. But this VAR changed my mind.
Can you provide a timestamp from this video that shows the ball contacting Rodriguez’s arm or hand? Going frame by frame, I see shoulder, chest, air, ground. Where is the handball?
Also, “settle down?” DBaD. I am calm. This call didn’t impact the outcome of the game and we can all analyze it coldly based on the merits. I’d suggest you do so and get off your high horse.
I've got to agree. Honestly, I feel like it probably came off his chest and then his arm helped control it. However, I agree that there is nothing 'clear and obvious' in the replay that shows this for sure. Therefore, the call on the field should stand. With that said, I think the threshold of 'clear and obvious' is a ridiculous bar to clear. I think they should use VAR as other leagues do to just get the call right, regardless of what the call on the field was. But, given MLS' current rules, I don't feel this should have been overturned.
I didn't like how VAR presented it and came to the conclusion with the frame by frame as I don't think the angles really showed what they thought it did. It was much clearer at full speed with the right angle as you can see the ball changing path easy. Just let the play through and the answer was right there for them.
@@MrCho14 One of the VAR assistants asked the chief if he wanted the view from behind goal and the chief shot him down. That was the only angle that might have definitively shown contact, so it was disappointing they didn’t check it. At full speed, I don’t see a change in direction that isn’t consistent with chesting the ball down. This is one of Rodriguez’s signature moves, if you will.
Wow, these refs need to let the VAR present before dictating. Show the VAR a little respect first
Interesting perspective. Not sure what you're seeing that I (20+ years reffing) would interpret as disrespect. The aim is to make the final decision as quickly as practical, and the ref's telling the VAR what he needs to see to do so. It's qualitatively not much different than the way I work with my ARs on comms (or with the ref when I'm an AR): quickly and clearly get the essential info to make the call.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Look at the Ref in the Seattle game. That ref was pretty bad in how he talked to everyone. He is rude and interrupts the VAR trying to help him repeatedly. I hope PRO reviews the refs and gets them out of the center of attention HOWEVER it takes.
@@vitowagner4473 We all hear things differently, of course. From having officiated a couple of thousand games, that sounds like a pretty normal level of conversation between referees around a key match incident - short, to the point, and no need to belabor discussion once the decision's made. Don't know how Mariscal felt, but personally, I wouldn't have felt disrespected as the VAR - they got to decisions quickly and moved on.
@@vitowagner4473I think him being short is making it seem worse than I actually was. You have to remember that the refs are running to which causes you to speak in shorter sentences in between breathing heavily
Show the overturned PK on Rodriguez, cowards.